RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/282448/system-fail

It will take weeks for the elite pundit class to unravel all the possible implications and subtexts embedded in Robert Mueller’s final report on the charge that Donald Trump and his team colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election. The right claims that the report exonerates Trump fully, while the left contends there are lots of nuggets in the full text of the final report that may point to obstruction of justice, if not collusion.

But here’s all you need to know about the special counsel probe:

First, after nearly two years, the special counsel found no credible evidence of collusion. It found no credible evidence of a plot to obstruct justice, to hide evidence of collusion. The entire collusion theory, which has formed the center of elite political discourse for over two years now, has been publicly and definitely proclaimed to be a hoax by the very person on whom news organizations and their chosen “experts” and “high-level sources” had so loudly and insistently pinned their daily, even hourly, hopes of redemption.

Mueller should have filed his report on May 18, 2017—the day after the special counsel started and he learned the FBI had opened an investigation on the sitting president of the United States because senior officials at the world’s premier law enforcement agency thought Trump was a Russian spy. Based on what evidence? A dossier compiled by a former British spy, relying on second- and third-hand sources, paid for by the Clinton campaign.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273214/judge-jeanine-and-paradoxes-post-911-world-bruce-bawer

Last Saturday night, one of the guests on Greg Gutfeld’s evening show on Fox News was a former Marine staff sergeant, bomb technician Johnny “Joey” Jones, who lost his legs when he stepped on an IED in Afghanistan in 2010. He brought to mind a young Jimmy Stewart: winsome, modest, good-spirited, and even able to crack jokes about his missing limbs. Watching him, I thought: here is a young man who was handicapped for life because, in the wake of 9/11, he was one of those courageous Americans who agreed to risk their lives in foreign lands fighting their nation’s enemy.

But what is that enemy? The unofficial name given to the struggle by the White House under George W. Bush – the War on Terror – avoided answering that question. So, for that matter, did the official name, Operation Enduring Freedom. From the very beginning, in fact, the exact nature of the whole enterprise was swathed in a fog of euphemism and evasion. The men who flew those planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon were devout Muslims, obeying their religion’s holy book by slaughtering infidels en masse. The Taliban leaders in Afghanistan were also devout Muslims, ruling that nation in strict accordance with sharia law. And yet days after 9/11, even as Bush was planning the Afghanistan campaign, he told the American people that “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”

In the eighteen years since, the Western political and media establishment have continued to echo that lie. Jihadists have struck Bali, Madrid, Beslan, London, Mumbai, Fort Hood, Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Orlando, Nice, Manchester, Barcelona, and New York again – just to name a few of the deadlier and more high-profile incidents. Yet, perversely, the lie about Islam is stronger than ever. Throughout the West, schoolchildren and college students alike have been fed a picture of Islam that’s pure propaganda. Yes, one has the impression that many people are more aware of the reality of Islam than they used to be – but one also has the impression that they feel more cowed than ever into keeping quiet about it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/lacking_crowds_to_protest_tucker_carlson_the_left_compensates_by_dressing_up_as_bananas.html

Fox News top host Tucker Carlson has been under fire by far leftists and their media allies for a string of dredged up comments made to some shock-jock dating from before his days at Fox, with big calls for protests and advertiser boycotts. Leading the charge has been the world’s premier slime machine, Media Matters, described in all its glory by Sharyl Attkisson in her book, The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote.

The Soros-bankrolled outfit has made a cacophony about Carlson, amplifying its calls for boycotts and for Fox ending the show through the bullhorns of Carlson’s less successful media rivals.

But something interesting is going on. An initial protest called by Media Matters at Fox News headquarters five days ago drew…”dozens” of protesters. Columbia Journalism Review has an embarrassingly adoring report here.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/judge_jeanine_is_right__fox_news_is_wrong.html

Fox’s newest fan is a Jew-hating member of Congress. Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is extremely grateful that Fox defended her and punished Judge Jeanine Pirro for asking a legitimate question.

On Saturday, Fox suddenly cancelled Pirro’s highly rated weekly show “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”

After “Justice” failed to appear on Fox’s upcoming weekend schedule, a spokesperson for the network refused to comment on “internal scheduling matters,” according to USA Today.

In a statement following Judge Jeanine’s opening remarks on March 9 , Fox News “strongly condemned” Pirro’s comments about Muslim Rep. Omar. A Muslim Fox News associate producer, Hufsa Kamal Khan, also called out Pirro asking her to stop “spreading the false narrative” that Muslim women wearing a hijab “aren’t American enough.”

The funny thing is the judge’s logical examination of the origin of Omar’s anti-Semitic statements was neither bigoted, nor false, nor inciteful.

She asked a valid question.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/16/media-gorges-itself-on-hatred-while

On a day in March, more than 40 members of a religious minority were targeted for their faith and murdered. I don’t mean the Mosque shooting in New Zealand, but the massacre of Christians in Nigeria, about which the American media was altogether unconcerned.

In the wake of the New Zealand shooting, however, New York Times “reporter” Patrick Kingsley could barely contain his glee. The New Zealand shooter, a self-described fascist, provided Kingsley with ammunition to charge President Trump, Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban with aiding and abetting the “Global Reach of White Extremism.” The shooter, wrote Kingsley, “highlights the contagious ways in which extreme right ideology and violence have spread in the 21st century.” Trump, Orban, Salvini, and all those who dare speak their name but to spite them, own this shooting so far as Kingsley is concerned.

A search for “Nigeria” in the Times’ archives shows that no ink has been spilled in the columns of this, America’s “newspaper of record,” for the Christians facing extermination at the hands of Muslims in that country. This is odd, isn’t it?

Local reports from Nigeria state that 35 people were killed on March 10 during an attack on Anguwan Barde. The next day, authorities estimate that 46 people were murdered in the village of Anguwan Gamu. Around 100 homes were razed. The bodies of a minister and his wife were found mutilated, floating in a river. All in all, more than 130 people were killed during one week in February, which suggests a plan to “wipe out certain communities”; namely, Christians, a minority group.

https://jamieglazov.com/2019/03/17/glazov-moment-in-defense-of-judge-jeanine/

In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie takes a stand In Defense of Judge Jeanine, unveiling Fox News’ pathetic and shameful surrender to Sharia.

Don’t miss it!

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/14/the-washington

“Dissent? A different point of view? Criticism? Don’t try to understand! Engulf your audience in the comfortable refuge of their enemies’ “racism.”

Over the last three evenings, Americans watched Tucker Carlson refuse to be cowed by the sophisticated, well-funded, coordinated information operation designed to chase him off the air and make him unemployable for life.

One of the points he’s raised, not so much in his own defense, but rather as a counteroffensive against his enemies, is that Media Matters for America (MMfA)—his primary tormenter—enjoys a symbiotic relationship with the corporate Left media (CLM), to whom it can feed propaganda with the assurance that it will be regurgitated verbatim. “Symbiotic” because they need and feed off one another. MMfA lacks a sufficiently large megaphone to broadcast its message. The CLM, by contrast, not only has such a megaphone; fundamentally it is a megaphone. It’s lazy and so relies on others to feed it stories, which MMfA is only too happy to do.

As if to prove Carlson right, the Washington Post on Thursday published an embarrassingly spoon-fed story from (you guessed it) MMfA. It’s a perfect case study in how the CLM spins and misleads without lying and peddles propaganda under the guise of “news.”

The premise of the piece is accurately encapsulated by its title: “Tucker Carlson says he’s the victim of a powerful bully. Meet the 24-year-old who found the tapes.”

See what they did there? The Post deliberately glides right past who and what Carlson actually means by “bully”: MMfA itself, its deep-pocketed donors, its Democratic Party backers and beneficiaries, the rent-a-mobs it can instantly gin up on Twitter and even in person, and of course its media lackeys—emphatically including the Post. Instead, they try to say that Carlson’s “bully” is merely a lone “24-year-old” who “lives in the basement of a D.C. house she rents with five other people, a few cats and a dog named Noodles.”

Awww!

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/13/

Victor Davis Hanson is about as accomplished and credentialed a commentator you can find. He’s an author, a military historian, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a farmer in California. President George W. Bush awarded Hanson the National Humanities Award in 2007. By all accounts and appearances, he is a decent, humble man who spends a great deal of time analyzing our current political moment and discussing what it portends for the future.

Hanson also is a supporter of President Trump. This heresy has earned him scorn from quarters on the Left and the so-called Right. His new book, The Case for Trump, has generated a barrage of criticism from the cabal of NeverTrumpers. Embittered by their humiliating miscalculation of Trump’s candidacy and shamelessly contorting their previous views to be able to contradict the president, these anti-Trump “conservatives” viciously attack anyone who dares to support the president. This includes Hanson.

In a particularly vile hit piece posted on The Bulwark, the new blog of Weekly Standard refugees who were left unemployed after the publication was shuttered in December, Gabe Schoenfeld accused Hanson of defending evil—that evil being President Trump. Bulwark editor Charlie Sykes recently threatened to “raise the opportunity costs” for pro-Trump commentators, Hanson specifically. To do so, Sykes enlisted the facile services of Schoenfeld, an advisor for the failed Mitt Romney presidential campaign, to pretend to write a book review that was little more than an ad hominem attack on Hanson.

Schoenfeld intimates that Hanson is a racist, an anti-Semite, and a Nazi sympathizer.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/the-bulwark-embarrasses-itself-further-with-attack-on-victor-davis-hanson/

Being of a charitable disposition, I early on decided that the kindest response to the Bulwark, the NeverTrump redoubt started by Bill Kristol following the implosion of the Weekly Standard, was silence. If this tiny cohort of bitter and unhappy souls were determined to embarrass themselves in public, the best we could do was turn away. Non ragioniam di lor, as Dante says in another context, ma guarda e passa. It would be cruel to let daylight in upon madness.

I said nothing when, for one of their opening acts, their Editor-in-Chief Charles Sykes pronounced anathema upon me and Henry Olsen, the distinguished Ethics and Public Policy scholar, for the sin of supporting the President of the United States on some issue or other. I was planning to continue to follow Wittgenstein’s advice at the end of the Tractatus and pass over in silence the twisted attack on Victor Davis Hanson’s new book on the president, The Case for Trump, by Hudson Institute Fellow Gabriel Schoenfeld, but the ad hominem viciousness of the piece together with its surreal mischaracterization of Hanson’s argument prompts me to weigh in.

Longtime readers will know that I have had my own innings with Schoenfeld over Donald Trump. I hesitate to speak again not only because calling attention to Gabe Schoenfeld is a little like calling attention to the disheveled fellow you find screaming at passersby on the street outside your office but also because Victor Hanson has himself delivered a devastating response to Schoenfeld’s attack. I cannot improve upon Victor’s definitive retort, but it is worth iterating one or two elements of the exchange.