RUTHFULLY YOURS

Prominently displayed on the #BlackLivesMatter website is a quote from cop-killer Assata Shakur. The Black Panther cop-killer worshiped by the violent racist hate group is listed by the FBI as a domestic terrorist.

A racist domestic terrorist was the ideological inspiration for #BlackLivesMatter. It is not surprising that the group’s campaign against the police led to the murder of police officers.

At the memorial service in Dallas, Obama vehemently defended the hate group against all criticism. He insisted on repeating the myth of “peaceful” protests that suddenly turn violent despite the long history of violence in #BlackLivesMatter protests and the calls for the murder of police officers by activists at #BlackLivesMatter events.

Obama has the best of reasons for covering up the ugly truth about #BlackLivesMatter and the hate groups associated with it. The massacre of police officers in Dallas was neither shocking nor unexpected.

A #BlackLivesMatter supporter had already murdered two police officers in New York. The disturbing rise in the murder of police officers had gone mostly unreported because it was politically inconvenient.

A larger attack was inevitable. It was only a matter of when.

The Justice Department was warned that the New Black Panther Party was advocating the ambush assassinations of police officers. Obama’s DOJ, which had protected the black nationalist terror group through everything from voter intimidation to major terror plots, laughed off the threat.

Micah Xavier Johnson, the Dallas black nationalist terrorist, had attended meetings of the People’s New Black Panther Party whose members were present with weapons at the scene of the anti-police hate rally. Despite the claims that Johnson was a random lunatic with no connection to the otherwise “peaceful” protest, his brand of lunacy was mainstream among groups such as the New Black Panther Party and the New Black Panther Party had supporters at the highest levels of government.

A political observer insists that the country hasn’t been this divided since the 1850s.

Which political observer? Lots of them, as it turns out.

In 2011, California governor Jerry Brown insisted that the country was experiencing a regime crisis of the sort not seen since the run-up to the Civil War. In 2013, Professor Aubrey Jewett of the University of Central Florida said the same thing. In 2014, it was Gawker; in 2010, it was Jimmy Carter. It’s a pretty common claim.

It isn’t true, of course. While race riots and snipers do bring to mind the worst of the 1960s, it isn’t 1968, much less 1860. We’ve had a few years of economic weakness, but there is broadly shared prosperity. We have corrupt and often ineffective public institutions, but government remains responsive enough to ensure general consent, and, beyond its provision of basic physical security, it is less and less relevant to our immediate happiness and well-being. Even as our political discourse becomes more theatrical and hysterical, we are, as a people, remarkably complacent. When Sean Hannity sat down to do a “town hall” show with Donald Trump, he attracted an unusually large audience — but 28 times as many people tuned in to watch reruns of The Big Bang Theory, the Coriolanus of broad, laugh-tracked sitcoms.

You’d think a country on the verge of political meltdown would pay a little more attention to the news. Despite what you may have heard from Donald Trump, National Review is the largest magazine of its kind, and our readership is about 4 percent of US Weekly’s. Golf Digest, Glamour, and Martha Stewart Living all have readerships that the New York Times management would sell Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.’s soul for, if anybody were buying.

But telling people that we’re on the verge of civil war is a good business model. Michael Savage has made a lot more money peddling Armageddon than he ever did peddling herbal nostrums as Michael Weiner. His colleague, the Reverend Al Sharpton, has grown rich trying to give him that civil war — it’s a little like the symbiotic relationship between police and terrorists described in Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent. Conrad knew all about living in consequential times: His father had been a famous revolutionary and exile. Like any sane man of his age, he became a British subject as quickly as he could, changing the dramatic rule of the czar for the sedate reign of Queen Victoria. Boring, stable societies are best appreciated by those who have known the other kind.

It is worth considering the possibility that we do not live in especially consequential times, politically speaking, and that much of the drama of our current politics is just that: drama, a performance we stage for ourselves as an entertainment.

In the wake of the mass killing of Dallas police officers, Barack Obama spoke at the memorial service.

His speech began with the appropriate language and tone that made it appear that finally, he was trying to bring America together. But then, apparently unable to help himself, he veered off the path of reason and fell back to his old pattern of painting with a broad brush, virtually declaring that there are only two types of racists – those who admit they are racists and those who, although they are racists, deny that they are.

The ABC Dallas affiliated station, WFAA posted the full transcript of President Obama’s speech at the Dallas memorial service on Tuesday, July 12, 2016.

Obama’s inflammatory statements, coupled with the statements made by Democratic members of the House of Representatives during hearings that were conducted to consider the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, turned those hearings into opportunities to focus on police shootings.

Those hearings were called because of the apparent crimes committed by Ms Clinton in mishandling e-mails that contained classified information up to and including at the Top Secret level and higher. Clinton also made use of unauthorized computer servers in her house that were in total violation of laws and regulations concerning national security. Yet Democratic members of Congress insisted that Clinton’s actions were of no significance but then sought to question both FBI Direct Comey and at a subsequent hearing, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, about police shootings and issues concerning gun control.

This tactic, either by design or stupidity, fans the flames that threaten to engulf so many of America’s tinderbox poverty-stricken neighborhoods around the United States, in the flames of conflict. This threatens the safety and the lives of those neighborhoods and the safety and the lives of the police officers who patrol those neighborhoods to protect those who live there.

The day after lecturing mourning Dallas police about how racist they are, President Obama hosted leaders of the virulently racist Black Lives Matter movement at the White House.

Black Lives Matter, which is funded by hedge fund manager George Soros, is not merely a political movement: it’s a Marxist, anti-American, revolutionary cult whose members aim to unleash a reign of terror on our society. They celebrate when police officers are killed in the line of duty. They don’t want equality; they demand that black Americans receive special, preferential treatment. Disagree and they’ll howl you’re a racist, boycott your business, or try to get you investigated for hate crimes.

The White House visit came after the grotesque, undignified, un-presidential atrocity of a speech President Obama gave in Dallas on Tuesday at a memorial service for the five officers slain by black supremacist Micah Xavier Johnson. At that event Obama lectured Americans, defended Black Lives Matter, bashed police, and pontificated about how racist Americans and American institutions are, particularly the police, while spewing all manner of left-wing talking points.

“If we’re honest, perhaps we’ve heard prejudice in our own heads and felt it in our own hearts. We know that. And while some suffer far more under racism’s burden, some feel to a far greater extent discrimination’s sting. Although most of us do our best to guard against it and teach our children better, none of us is entirely innocent. No institution is entirely immune. And that includes our police departments. We know this.”

At an event intended to honor police murdered by a racist cop-hater, Obama chose to slander cops as racist, placing them on the same moral footing as Johnson. “Insisting we do better to root out racial bias is not an attack on cops, but an effort to live up to our highest ideals,” he said.

It’s classic Obama. He tells Americans to help him heal the nation while passive-aggressively stabbing at his enemies, and then invites those tearing the country apart to the people’s mansion for milk and cookies.

The invitees were part of Black Lives Matter which urges the murder of cops. Obama has been inviting racist disciples to the White House to learn at the feet of the master agitator for years. Such invitations constitute implicit endorsement by the president of the Black Lives Matter movement’s in-your-face antics and violent activism. At such White House meetings and in speeches across the nation, the president grossly exaggerates the extent of police brutality in America today and tells lie after lie in order to throw red meat to his fellow radical agitators.

In response to the tragic deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling at the hands of police officers in Minnesota and Louisiana, the New York University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) posted the following on its Facebook page:

“In the past 48 hours another two black men have been lynched by the police…. We must remember that many US police departments train with #IsraeliDefenceForces. The same forces behind the genocide of black people in America are behind the genocide of Palestinians. What this means is that Palestinians must stand with our black comrades. We must struggle for their liberation. It is as important as our own. #AltonSterling is as important as #AliDawabsheh. Palestinian liberation and black liberation go together. We must recognize this and commit to building for it.”

Even in moments of national mourning such as these, SJP bigots cannot help but exploit the deaths of innocent Americans to further their own anti-Semitic political agenda, namely to delegitimize and demonize the nation state of the Jewish people.

By implicating Israel in these killings, SJP is engaging in the old trope of blaming Jews for systemic and far-reaching societal problems. This practice was anti-Semitic when some Christian communities used it to blame Jews for plagues, poisonings, and murders; it was anti-Semitic when the Nazis used it to blame Jews for the failing German economy; and it is still anti-Semitic today. There is no more evidence that any of the police who killed Mr. Castile and Mr. Sterling were in fact trained in Israel than there was that Jews were responsible for any of the other crimes that formed the basis for traditional blood libels.

The oppression of black Americans long predates the founding of the state of Israel; contrary to the claims of SJP and like-minded groups, Zionism did not beget racism, nor is Zionism a reflection of racism. It is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. But the twisted logic on the part of SJP should come as no surprise, given that the same organization blamed Zionism for rising tuition costs in the City University of New York college system. The essence of anti-Semitism is the bigoted claim that if there is a problem, then Jews — and now Zionists — must be its cause.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in her opening statement Tuesday that she would not “comment further” on the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server now that the FBI’s probe has concluded with no charges recommended against the presumed Democratic presidential nominee.

“I want to close with a comment about the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of State. As you are aware, last week I met with [FBI] Director [James] Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted that investigation,” the attorney general said.

“I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough year-long investigation be closed and no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation,” Lynch said.

“And while I understand that this investigation has generated significant public interest, as attorney general, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the underlying facts of the investigation or the legal basis for the team’s investigation,” she added.

In an exchange with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Lynch declined to comment “on the facts or the substance” of the case:

Goodlatte: “Let me turn your attention to Director Comey’s conclusions on a variety of points. Secretary Clinton stated that she never sent or received information marked as classified on her server. Director Comey stated that was not true. Do you agree with Director Comey?” Goodlatte asked.

Lynch: “Director Comey has chosen to provide great detail into the basis of his recommendations that were ultimately provided to me. He’s chosen to provide detailed statements, and I would refer you to those statements. I, as attorney general, am not able to provide any further comment on the facts or the substance of the investigation.”

Goodlatte: “General Lynch, I think you will agree that the ultimate responsibility for a prosecutorial decision does not rest with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but with the Department of Justice, which you head. Have you not taken a close look at the work done by Director Comey, especially given the extreme national interest in this issue to make a determination yourself whether you or those working for you agree or disagree with Director Comey?”

Lynch: “As I’ve indicated, I’ve received the recommendation of the team, and that team is composed prosecutors and agents. It was a unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation, and … what the information that they have received concluded, and I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it, and again I reiterate my pride and faith in their work.”