Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

The emperor’s new portrait Roger Franklin

When your entire public life has been blessed with the adulation of courtiers it can be very difficult not merely to determine how many of their hosannas are genuine but also the worth of what you imagine to be your own good taste.

Take Barack Obama, for example. The only editor of the Harvard Law Review never to have contributed a bylined essay to the publication, he was nevertheless hailed by admirers as a genius of jurisprudence. Make a dreadful mess of US policy and actions in the Middle East and those blunders are deemed to be of no accord. An ambassador is butchered in Libya and the grim facts of his murder are draped in layers of lies about an obscure YouTube clip allegedly prompting an entirely understandable reaction on the part of Islam’s faithful. No matter what Obama’s offence against competence, truth and US national interests, a claque of editorialists could be counted on to pound their keyboards in his defence.

Having for so long been bathed in the admiration of sycophants and the feting of toadies, Obama’s newly unveiled official portrait testifies to the perils of accepting flattery as fact. The picture, reproduced above, is perhaps the biggest advertisement for oddness since the New York Post profiled a nasty piece of work with the memorable front-page headline “Ghadafi Goes Daffy: Libyan leader is a transvestite druggie.”

What is the artist, Kehinde Wiley, trying to say? That Obama needs be regarded as a somewhat advanced form of vegetation? That he is the fairy at the bottom of the garden? That his most notable achievement was using White House antiques as outdoor furniture? Don’t laugh, all those options are possibilities from an artist whose earlier schtick was the depiction of black women brandishing the severed heads of white people.

Apparently Obama likes it, which tells you everything you need to know about the man and his judgement.

Judging Us by Mark Steyn

On Monday evening, I joined Tucker Carlson to discuss Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s evidence-free analysis of the last election, and say a few words on the new Obama presidential portrait. On the last point I had a few cheap cracks ready re the extra finger Obama’s chosen artist has given him (see right). That makes eleven digits, which oddly enough is as many as the national debt had under him. [See Timothy McDonnell’s important note below.] Etc. But Tucker chose to move on to Justice Ginsburg, and to be honest any reasonably competent person can do his own shtick re the Obama portraiture, so you don’t need mine.

As to judges moonlighting as pundits, what with one thing and another, I was less tolerant of this latest and most prominent example of America’s hideously politicized judiciary than I might have been. Click below to watch:

Looking Away from Urban Crime For liberals, thousands of mostly black homicide victims are just a “bump” in the numbers. Heather Mac Donald

New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik purports to care about black lives—except when doing so would violate liberal nostrums. In an essay on the nation’s 20-year crime drop, inspired by New York University sociologist Patrick Sharkey’s new book, Uneasy Peace, Gopnik declares that the “urban crime wave is over.” Anyone who has recently raised an alarum about crime—that would be Donald Trump, of course—is appealing to “preexisting bigotry.” Trump campaigned “against crime and carnage where it scarcely exists,” Gopnik writes, in order to exploit the “fetishistic role” of crime in the racist American imagination.

Let’s look at what Gopnik calls crime that “scarcely exists.” In 2016, candidate Trump spoke repeatedly about the rising bloodshed in inner cities. That year was the second in a two-year, 20-percent increase in the nation’s homicide rate, the largest in nearly half a century. Violent crime overall rose nearly 7 percent in 2015 and 2016—the largest consecutive one-year increases in a quarter-century. Up until 2015, crime had been steadily dropping across the country, thanks to the spread of data-driven, proactive policing and the use of determinate sentencing to lock away violent criminals. But as 2014 drew to a close, that 20-year crime drop stalled and then reversed itself.

The victims of the 2015 and 2016 homicide increase were overwhelmingly black. In 2014, there were 6,095 black homicide victims, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. In 2015, there were 7,039 black homicide victims; in 2016, there were 7,881 black homicide victims. Those 7,881 dead black bodies in 2016 comprised more than half the total homicide victims that year, though blacks are only 13 percent of the population. An additional 2,731 blacks were killed over the course of 2015 and 2016 compared with 2014. To Gopnik, that loss of an additional 2,731 black lives is not worth paying attention to—it “scarcely exists.”

Trump regularly referred to Chicago’s crime increase during the presidential campaign. In 2016, 4,300 people were shot in Chicago—one person every two hours. The victims were overwhelmingly black. Two dozen children under the age of 12 were shot in Chicago in 2016, among them a three-year-old boy mowed down on Father’s Day 2016 who is now paralyzed for life, and a ten-year-old boy shot in August whose pancreas, intestines, kidney, and spleen were torn apart. Those child victims were also overwhelmingly black. Trump called those Chicago shootings and others like them in Baltimore and St. Louis “carnage.” What does Gopnik call them? A mere “bump or burp in the numbers.” If 4,300 white people had been shot in any city of the country, there would be a revolution. But because the victims were black, it would be dog-whistle racism to call attention to them. Racism once consisted of ignoring black-on-black violence as a fact of nature that was beneath concern. It is a bizarre twist in contemporary liberalism that drawing attention to the black victims of street crime is now the racist position. This deflection has come about in order to avoid acknowledging that the perpetrators of this crime are black, too. So it is better to look away entirely.

In Porter Saga, Media Concern About Abuse is Secondary By Julie Kelly

House Oversight Chairman Trey Gowdy told CNN Wednesday morning that his committee is looking into how the White House handed domestic abuse allegations against former staff secretary Rob Porter.https://amgreatness.com/2018/02/14/porter-saga-media-concern-abuse-secondary/

The media has been on a weeklong feeding frenzy since the Daily Mail posted an exclusive interview with Porter’s second ex-wife claiming he emotionally and verbally her during their brief marriage. (The next day, after Porter resigned, the Mail published another exposé, detailing more accusations from Porter’s first wife, including a 2003 photo of her with a black eye, allegedly from him.) Porter has denied the charges, calling them a “coordinated smear campaign” since the tabloid ranan article the week before about his relationship with Trump’s communications advisor, Hope Hicks.

But the fallout is continuing unabated and now Congress is getting involved.

Gowdy blasted both the White House and the FBI for not being more forthcoming about Porter’s employment and security clearance process: “Who knew what, when, and to what extent—those are the questions I think need to be asked, and Congress has a role to play.” This morning, his committee sent letters to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly asking for clarification on apparently conflicting statements by Wray and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about when Porter’s background investigation was completed.

The outrage cycle over the Porter matter quickly shifted from his irrefutable guilt to condemnation of the White House—particularly of Chief of Staff John Kelly—for employing a known abuser. Kelly defended Porter in the first Mail article, calling him a “man of true integrity and honor.” Since the Mail story broke February 6, the Washington Post has published 98 articles and columns targeting Kelly. The day after the allegations appeared, deputy editor Ruth Marcus was already blasting Kelly, claiming—without any proof—that Trump’s chief of staff “knew of the FBI reports.”

Wray’s Contested “Contradiction”

The “they knew!” talking point ostensibly got a boost yesterday when Wray testified on Capitol Hill and answered a question by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) about the FBI’s involvement in Porter’s background check. Here’s how it went down:

Wyden: Was the FBI aware of the allegations related to Rob Porter and domestic abuse? And if so, was the White House informed this could affect his security clearance, when were they informed, and who at the White House was informed?

James Comey gets sneaky again By Monica Showalter

James Comey is proving himself to be a real sneak.

According to information in the Grassley-Graham memo, the former FBI director had a meeting with the White House on Jan. 5 about supposed Russian collusion in the 2016 election and then failed to disclose it to Congress, when he was asked about it in testimony. It turns out that the Obama inner circle, including Susan Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Comey, and President Obama were all pow-wowing together in the White House, and Susan Rice, who questioned whether incoming President Trump should be told at all about the Russian collusion investigation, wrote a memo to herself describing the encounter.

The fact that Comey showed up comes in direct contradiction with Comey’s sworn testimony to Congress, claiming he never met President Obama except on two unimportant occasions, the Daily Caller notes:

By failing to inform the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the meeting in his June 8, 2017, testimony, Comey may have deliberately and intentionally misled Congress about his interactions with the former president, especially a meeting so close to Trump entering the White House.

…and…

Previously, Comey contended he only met with the Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement read.

The Big Dog Won’t Hunt? Some Democrats don’t want to campaign with Bill Clinton; Republicans enjoy a polling bounce. James Freeman

This column has argued that the Republican tax cut will become increasingly popular among voters and new surveys suggest that’s exactly what’s happening. Meanwhile, Democrats trying to make the case that the predations of their Hollywood sponsors amount to a reason to vote against Republicans seem to be distancing themselves from another of their predatory patrons.

Politico reports:

Democrats are looking to embrace the #MeToo moment and rally women to push back on President Donald Trump in the midterms—and they don’t want Bill Clinton anywhere near it.

In a year when the party is deploying all their other big guns and trying to appeal to precisely the kind of voters Clinton has consistently won over, an array of Democrats told POLITICO they’re keeping him on the bench. They don’t want to be seen anywhere near a man with a history of harassment allegations, as guilty as their party loyalty to him makes them feel about it.

Readers may be wondering why anyone would feel guilty about shunning Bill Clinton. But as Politico elaborates, feelings don’t really have all that much to do with 2018 campaign decision-making:

Several Democratic campaigns have already polled Clinton’s popularity in their races, weighing whether to take the risk of inviting him out. Others say they’d love to see him chip in, so long as he sticks to New York, at closed-door fundraisers for them where no photographs of them together are taken.

This suggests that Mr. Clinton could be in for some awkward moments this fall, assuming he has more capacity for embarrassment than he’s shown to date. Perhaps some Democrats have decided that appearing with Louis Farrakhan is one thing, but standing next to Mr. Clinton is quite another. Politico reports on mixed feelings about the former President:

“People are crass about it and will look to see where his numbers are,” admitted one Democratic member of Congress who is in a tough race and is anxious about going public embracing or trashing Clinton. “He’s still Bill Clinton, and he’s still a draw to certain segments of the party.”

“Depending on the audience, there will definitely be people … [who] will be uncomfortable,” said Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.). But there will also “definitely be people who want to see him.”

Separately, Politico reports on its new survey which is bound to have GOP candidates feeling more comfortable:

Republicans have erased the Democratic advantage on the generic congressional ballot in a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that, for the first time since April, also shows President Donald Trump’s approval rating equaling the percentage of voters who disapprove of his job performance. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump Mideast Plan Is ‘Fairly Well Advanced,’ Tillerson Says Secretary of state, in Jordan to sign increased aid package, says president will decide when it is ready By Felicia Schwartz

Will this be another “peacemeal” destruction of Israel? rsk

AMMAN, Jordan—President Donald Trump’s plan for peace in the Middle East is “fairly well advanced,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Wednesday, offering a rare insight into progress on the administration’s proposal for solving the decades-old conflict.

The peace plan, being developed by the White House in a closely held process overseen by President Donald Trump’s aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner, has been on Mr. Tillerson’s agenda while traveling across the Middle East this week.

“I have seen the plan, the elements of the plan,” Mr. Tillerson said in Jordan. “It’s been under development for a number of months. I have consulted with them on the plan, identified areas that we feel need further work.” He added that “it will be up to the president to decide when he feels it’s time and he’s ready to put that plan forward.”

The U.S. is sharply at odds with Palestinian leaders after Mr. Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the contested city as Israel’s capital. Palestinians have sought to replace the U.S. as a peace broker, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to address the United Nations Security Council next week.

Mr. Tillerson spoke to reporters alongside Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, after the pair signed a new foreign-assistance agreement. Under the agreement, the U.S. will commit $1.275 billion a year to boost Jordan’s security and economy.

State Dept. Embraces Islamic Cleric Who OK’d Killing Americans in Iraq, Called for Israel’s Destruction By Patrick Poole

Last Thursday, Sam Brownback was sworn in as the State Department’s new ambassador for religious liberty.

Today — in his first official speech as ambassador — Brownback openly embraced a hardline Islamic cleric who authorized a fatwa in 2004 justifying the killing of Americans in Iraq, and another fatwa in 2012 calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah’s past is no mystery to the State Department. For example, the Obama administration’s State Department had to repeatedly apologize in May 2014 for promoting Bin Bayyah as a moderate. However, the Obama administration then implemented a full-court press with the U.S. media and the D.C. foreign policy “Smart Set” to rehabilitate the image of the Mauritanian cleric.

The presence of multiple senior Trump State Department officials at an “interfaith” event in Washington, D.C. in support of Bin Bayyah’s efforts appears to confirm there will be no change. The Trump administration is continuing the engagement with Bin Bayyah they inherited from Obama — despite the fact that Bin Bayyah’s views on Israel are directly contrary to those of President Trump.

There is also an inherent contradiction in the Trump State Department embracing the interfaith efforts of an Islamic cleric who openly states on his website that Christians are going to hell. Bin Bayyah has also said that interfaith outreach to Jews in Arab lands should only be done with extreme caution — and only with Jews who oppose Israel.

The State Department is promoting Brownback’s speech at Bin Bayyah’s event earlier today:The Obama administration’s attempts to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah were not without controversy. Most embarrassing for the Obama White House was Bin Bayyah’s approval of a 2004 fatwa authorizing the killing of Americans in Iraq and endorsing the Iraqi “resistance.” This information was raised in June 2013 after it was reported Bin Bayyah had been escorted into the White House to meet with senior members of Obama’s National Security Council. CONTINUE AT SITE

Congressman Bobby Rush (D.Ill)Asks if Trump Had ‘Lynching Tree’ at Black History Month Event By Nicholas Ballasy (????!!!)see note please

The best thing Bobby Rush ever did was in 2000 when he faced a primary challenge from State Senator Barack Obama. Rush defeated Obama 61 to 30 percent with other candidates making up the other 9 percent. rsk

WASHINGTON – Asked about President Trump’s remarks at Tuesday’s White House Black History Month ceremony, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who hadn’t seen the event, asked PJM if the administration displayed a “lynching tree” there.

“Lynching? What did they have? A tree like out in Alabama they used to lynch with?” Rush asked during an interview Tuesday evening after the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Avoice Heritage Celebration recognizing African-American veterans.

When Rush was told there wasn’t a lynching tree at the White House, he replied, “Oh, they didn’t have that? He didn’t do a replica of a lynching tree?”

The theme of the White House’s Black History Month ceremony was “African-Americans in Times of War.” During the event, Trump reiterated his remarks about a record-low African-American unemployment. The rate in December was 6.8 percent; the lowest previous rate was 7 percent in April 2000. The current trend began falling in June 2013, when the rate was 14.2 percent.

The 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018

Every year, FIRE chooses the 10 worst colleges for free speech — and unfortunately, 2017 left us with plenty of options: Campuses were rocked by violent mob censorship, monitored by bias response teams, plagued by free speech zones, and beset by far too many disinvitation attempts. Although the number of colleges with the most restrictive speech codes has continued to decline, 90 percent of schools still maintain codes that either clearly restrict or could too easily be used to restrict free speech. https://www.thefire.org/the-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2018/

Today, we present our 2018 list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech. As always, our list is presented in no particular order, and it includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment; the private colleges on this list, though not required by the Constitution to protect student and faculty speech rights, explicitly promise to do so.

A new feature of this year’s list is our Lifetime Censorship Award. This “honor” goes to the one college or university that is so frequently discussed as a contender for our annual “worst colleges for free speech” list that it deserves special recognition. This year, that school is DePaul University.

Are you a student or faculty member whose free speech rights are imperiled on campus? Submit a case to FIRE. Also, check out FIRE’s Guides to Student Rights on Campus to help you fight for free speech, due process, religious liberty, and more.