RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/ilhan-omar-comments-criticism/

When the ‘victim’ is the victimizer

‘I t has to stop,” says Representative Ilhan Omar.

No, it does not.

Representative Omar, the Jew-hating Minnesota Democrat, is engaged in one of her usual games of misdirection, a pattern of hers that by now is familiar enough to be predicted: She says something outrageously stupid, offensive, anti-Semitic — or all three at once — and then attempts to parry the thrust of inevitable criticism by characterizing it as an attack on Muslims, women, women of color, Muslim women of color, etc.

In this case, Representative Omar characterized the events of September 11, 2001, this way: “Some people did something.” Someone assembled a video intercutting her blasé account of mass murder with images of that day’s events, and Donald Trump, who serves simultaneously as president of the United States and the nation’s social-media intern, tweeted the video, along with some vintage all-caps emoting: “WE WILL NEVER FORGET!”

The New York Times stepped on Representative Omar’s cue and uttered her lines itself, insisting that the criticism of Representative Omar is necessarily part of an attack on Muslims categorically. Trump of course has on more than one occasion treated Muslims categorically, for instance in calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” which, like so many of President Trump’s blustery promises, never came to pass and never even was given serious consideration. (The actual policy consists of restrictions on travel from six predominantly Muslim countries, along with North Koreans and officials of the Venezuelan government.) Representative Omar is not all Muslims, and she is not Muslims categorically: She’s a loopy left-wing identity-politics entrepreneur whom the Democratic party has carried to the U.S. House of Representatives. Criticism of elected officials is not only permissible but necessary.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/progressive-revolution-ends-in-socialism/

Obama kick-started a cycle that moves ever farther left — even he now seems passé.

Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 despite, not because of, his most partisan voting record in the Senate. They were once willing to look past his earlier dubious associations with abject anti-Semites such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, former terrorists like Bill Ayers, and unhinged characters such as Father Pfleger. They also averted their eyes from Obama’s often quite offensive commentary, in his autobiography and during the 2008 campaign (e.g., “typical white person” and “they cling to…” speech).

Instead, voters were tired of the Iraq War (which was over for all practical purposes by the time of the November 2008 election).

They were, of course, terrified by the September 2008 financial meltdown (which had been mostly stabilized four months later by the time of the inauguration) and irate at the kid-gloves treatment accorded often conniving banks and investors.

They were convinced that Obama might be healing and transformative as the first African-American president, supposedly only slightly to the left of a far steadier and more qualified Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell. And half the Democrats were already becoming sick of Hillary Clinton once they became reacquainted with her on the 2008 primary-campaign trail.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/15/behind-the-obama-administrations-shady-plan-to-spy-on-the-trump-campaign/

In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign.

Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.(Needless to say, the former director neglected to mention that the court was not informed that the bureau’s “evidence” for the warrants was unverified hearsay paid for by the Clinton campaign.)The pearl-clutching was predictable. Less than a year ago, we learned the Obama administration had used a confidential informant — a spy — to approach at least three Trump campaign officials in the months leading up to the 2016 election, straining to find proof that the campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking of Democratic e-mails.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-the-obama-administration-investigated-itself/

Each time they cleared itself of any wrongdoing.

Last week, Twitter declared that their own study of tweets by Democrats and Republicans last year proved there was no anti-conservative bias on their social media platform. It was amusing to see how the folks at Twitter considered this definitive proof that they don’t hold a bias against conservatives. It reminded me of how so many times the Obama administration attempted to control the narrative of their own scandals by investigating themselves and then clearing themselves of wrongdoing, with the expectation that the matter would be settled. Here are five examples of times the Obama administration investigated itself in the hopes of burying a scandal.

5. The Senate Seat For Sale Scandal

Few people seem to remember that even before Obama took office his presidential transition was under a cloud of scandal. Just over a month before he was to take office, Obama was implicated in a scandal involving his soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich had hoped to get a Cabinet position or ambassadorship in exchange for appointing an Obama-backed individual to replace him in the Senate. Obama’s top choice had been Valerie Jarrett, and offered to appoint Jarrett “in exchange for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in the President-elect’s cabinet,” but she eventually opted to follow Obama to the White House as his top advisor.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/15/bill_barr_dirty_cops_and_the_oj_simpson_trial_140053.html

When Attorney General Bill Barr testified last week that, yes, “spying did occur” in the government’s Trump-Russia investigation and that spying on a political campaign is a “big deal,” the Democrats were apoplectic. How could he dare say such a thing? The saintly James Comey went even further. He told an audience that he didn’t even know what spying meant. No, siree, he had no idea.

Barr’s candor is what Michael Kinsley famously called a “Washington gaffe,” where the naked truth somehow slips out. Naturally, it set off a firestorm.

Democrats demanded an immediate retraction but got only an anodyne rewording. Use a synonym and call it “surveillance.” The real question, Barr explained, was not whether there was spying—there obviously was—but whether it was legally justified. That is precisely what he intends to find out, he told Congress. He will also find out if the spymasters lied to Congress, about which he has now received criminal referrals.

The Democrats’ ferocious pushback confirms the gravity of the issue. Their fears are well-founded. The Obama administration politicized the Department of Justice, FBI, and intelligence agencies, and a serious investigation is very likely to find criminal wrong-doing. The response of top Democrats is to smear Barr as a partisan hack.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/15/democrats-freaked-barr-said-trump-campaign-spied/

There are two reasons the political media establishment is growing increasingly hostile towards Attorney General William Barr: First, he serves under President Donald Trump. Second, he is not only the messenger of the demise of the Russiagate conspiracy theory that the Deep State and its aiders, abettors, and enablers in the political media establishment worked so hard to perpetuate, but he could also be the source of the demise of the establishment itself, if he ends up exposing their whole sordid affair.

Should Barr conduct a thorough investigation of the Russiagate investigators, and the associated leakers and colluders, and dispense justice to the fullest extent of the law, it would drive a stake through the heart of the establishment writ large by demolishing the unjust system of double standards from which it has benefited, while punishing its foes.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/13/pursue-those-indictments/

Last month, Chris Buskirk wrote a column for the Spectator USA describing Representative Devin Nunes as “a hero of the Republic.” It was well-deserved praise. Nunes, a Republican Congressman from a rural district in California was, until January, chairman of the House Permanent Special Committee on Intelligence (he is now the ranking member). Nunes has worked tirelessly for more than two years to expose what our masters in deep-state Washington would bury from the glare of public scrutiny: the evidence that the entire Trump-Russian collusion narrative was a partisan effort, first, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and, when that failed, to cover up the effort while still working assiduously to destroy the Trump presidency.

As Buskirk points out, without Nunes’s terrier-like efforts—conducted, it has to be pointed out, against the background of scurrilous and unremitting calumnies from the Democrats and their bought-and-paid-for megaphones in the media—the public would likely be totally in the dark about what really happened over the course of 2016 as the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endeavored to “dirty up” Trump and his colleagues, calmly at first, and then with growing hysteria as Trump, against all the odds, emerged as a serious challenger and eventual victor in the election that all the smartest people knew, just knew, that Hillary had sewn up.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/why-isnt-assange-charged-with-collusion-with-russia/

The government would have a chance to prove in court that Russia was WikiLeaks’ source.

Prior to the publication of the stolen Democratic-party emails and internal documents, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks exhorted Russian government hackers to send them “new material.”

That is what we are told by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of Russian intelligence officers. (I won’t offend anyone by calling them “spies” — after all, they were just doing electronic surveillance authorized by their government, right?) Assange wanted the Russians to rest assured that giving “new material” to WikiLeaks (identified as “Organization 1” in the indictment) would “have a much higher impact than what you are doing” — i.e., hacking and then putting the information out through other channels.

But time was of the essence. It was early 2016. If Hillary Clinton was not stopped right there and then, WikiLeaks warned, proceedings at the imminent Democratic national convention would “solidify bernie supporters behind her.” Of course, “bernie” is Bernie Sanders, the competitor who could still get the nomination. But if Assange and the Russians couldn’t raise Bernie’s prospects, WikiLeaks explained, Mrs. Clinton would be a White House shoo-in: “We think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”

In a nutshell: Knowing that Russia had the capacity to hack the DNC and perhaps Clinton herself, WikiLeaks urged it to come up with new material and vowed to help bring it maximum public attention. By necessity, this desire to hurt Clinton would inure to Sanders’s benefit. And sure enough, WikiLeaks eventually published tens of thousands of the Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence.

So . . . I have a few questions.

https://www.andrewbostom.org/2019/04/does-ilhan-omar-believe-zionists-jews-are-responsible-for-9-11like-al-azhars-then-u-s-representative-sheikh-gameia-did/

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s now infamous speech at a Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) event March 23, 2019, was ostensibly about “justice” in Islam. Indeed Ms. Omar, acknowledging that although she wasn’t a hafiz (i.e., an extremely devout Muslim who memorizes the entire Koran; female=“hafiza”), nevertheless riveted her discussion on Koran 4:135. This verse highlights the supremacy of Islam in deciding what is “just”—namely, following the dictates of Allah, exclusively. The intimately related following verses, 4:136, and, especially 4:137, make plain those also provided Islam’s message via Muhammad, who chose to reject it—Jews and Christians—will not be guided, and more ominously, not forgiven, this “transgression.” (for confirmation, see these authoritative Koranic commentaries, here, here, on Koran 4:137).

Appropriately, public attention has been focused on Ilhan Omar’s statement at this CAIR meeting that the cultural jihadist organization,

was founded after 9/11/2001 [note: CAIR was founded in 1994, as a Hamas affiliate] because they recognized that some people did something, and [Muslims] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

Amidst the cacophony of well-deserved denunciations leveled at the good Congresswoman for her insensitivity, it is worth asking exactly whom she considers the “some people” that “did something.” This question must be posed to her directly. Why? As Pew polling data have revealed, consistently less than 30% of Ilhan Omar’s co-religionists, Arab and non-Arab Muslims alike, from a “high” of 28% of Lebanese Muslims, to only, 9%, 12%, and 20% of Muslims from Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, respectively, believe that Arab Muslims were responsible for the 9/11/2001 jihad carnage.