RUTHFULLY YOURS

Look out! It’s another fake Islamophobia crisis.

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest “hate group” sightings claims that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups increased almost three-fold in 2016.”

That’s a lot of folds.

And there is both bad news and good news from its “Year in Hate and Extremism.”

First the good news.

Casa D’Ice Signs, the sign outside a bar in K-Mart Plaza in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is no longer listed as a hate group. The sign outside the bar had been listed as a hate group by the SPLC for years. The owner of Casa D’Ice had been known for putting politically incorrect signs outside his bar. So the SPLC listed the “signs” as a hate group. (Even though there was only one sign.) Not the bar. That would have made too much sense.

Since then Casa D’Ice was sold and the SPLC has celebrated the defeat of another hate group. Even if the hate group was just a plastic sign outside a bar.

But the bad news, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that anti-Muslim hate groups shot up from only 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016.

What could possibly account for that growth? Statistical fakery so fake that a Vegas bookie would weep.

President Trump is on the cover of the SPLC’s latest Intelligence Report: a misnomer of a title from an organization whose intelligence gathering led it to list a bar sign as a hate group.

But there’s actually another phenomenon responsible for this startling rise reported by the SPLC.

The SPLC decided to count 45 chapters of Act for America as separate groups.

It seems that the worst person in American public life — an elderly gentleman who simply refuses to get off the stage, especially now that he’s back in the good graces of his liberal admirers in the media — is up to his old tricks. On a visit to Munich this weekend, John McCain criticized President Trump, praised German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and generally trampled all over the old adage that politics ends at the water’s edge.

But then, McCain has never let niceties like manners, party loyalty, or just plain human decency knock him off his largely imaginary moral high horse. Regrettably returned to office last year by the foolish voters of Arizona, McCain has another six years of stabbing his ostensible allies in the back while busily trying to drag the United States into another purposeless war with just about any country you can think of. It would take Sigmund Freud to figure out McCain’s particular pathology, a combination of arrogance, privilege, guilt and political impotence that ill serves the country he claims to love.

Finally, one of his colleagues in the Senate has had the guts to call him out:

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Sunday warned against taking seriously comments his Senate colleague John McCain of Arizona made on Saturday, in which the Arizona lawmaker compared President Trump’s actions toward the press to “how dictators get started.”

“The thing is, I don’t agree with his analysis and applying that to the president,” Paul told Jon Karl, guest host of ABC’s “This Week.” “Everything that [McCain] says about the president is colored by his own personal dispute he’s got running with President Trump and it should be taken with a grain of salt, because John McCain’s the guy that’s advocated for war everywhere. He would bankrupt the nation.”

Chaos reigns in the White House, according to the mainstream press. Well, it may be that the new administration isn’t yet a ‘fine-tuned machine’, but it is getting runs on the board nevertheless. That explains why journalists are doing what they do best — peddling misrepresentations and outright lies
I watched most of Donald Trump’s latest press conference. He is a performer par excellence; batting away the ‘fake news’ media. What a refreshing change from the soporific, long-winded tedium of Obama answering dorothy dixers from a fawning media.

He knew what they would say, and he told the media throng as much. You’ll say I was “ranting and raving,” he predicted. Sure enough, no doubt taking a lead from the Democratic Party’s propaganda headquarters, aka CNN, the word “unhinged” became the word of choice. Take my word for it. He wasn’t a bit unhinged. He was measured and good humoured, as you see if you view the video embedded below

If you want ‘unhinged’ watch Nancy Pelosi explaining the origin of the word ‘scapegoat’, which came out of a counterfeit tweet posing as one from General Flynn. She obviously thought that lots of Spanish-speaking illegal voters would be unfamiliar with the word.

Trump is, of course, spot on. For the most part, the MSM in America is effectively part of the Democratic Party. You gotta treat your political enemy as your political enemy. Maybe if (now embittered) John McCain or (nice guy, turned nasty, turned nice again Mitt Romney) had not cowered when confronted by the gnashing enmity of the Fourth Estate they might have won the top job. Who could forget Romney’s craven Candy Crowley moment? Voters didn’t.

At one point Trump said that he hadn’t seen such hate as is directed at him by parts of the media. This prompted a CNN reporter to preamble his question by saying that they didn’t hate him. But they do! I have seen it personally; for example, on CNN panel discussions. Their desire for him to fail is palpable and in the most miserable of fashions possible. Wanting someone to fail miserably is the best definition of hate I can come up with.

But what gets me most are not the left-wing media hacks (i.e., most of the media), they are beyond disdain, but putative conservative commentators advising Trump not to be so thin-skinned; to be more presidential. It reminds me of that joke about bad-boy English footballer George Best. George is discovered by a reporter in a fancy hotel bedroom with a half-naked model, quaffing a bottle of champagne. Where did it all go wrong, George, the reporter asks?

Donald Trump won against the odds and all expectations. It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why he should change a winning formula. He actually stands there, accepts all questions, and speaks his mind. Part of the mess that we are in is precisely because political leaders are now practiced in the art of not giving straight answers. They are particularly practiced in hiding their underlying belief system. So practiced, that I suspect some have reached a stage where they no longer have any underlying beliefs to guide them, or even know what such beliefs are.

(This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 27, 1994. Michael Novak died Friday at 83.)

Democracy, Winston Churchill once said, is a bad system of government, except when compared to all the others. Much the same might be said of capitalism. It is not a system much celebrated by the poets, the philosophers or the priests. From time to time, it has seemed romantic to the young; but not very often. Capitalism is a system that commends itself best to the middle aged, after they have gained some experience of the way history treats the plans of men.

My own field of inquiry is theology and philosophy. From the perspective of these fields, I would not want it to be thought that any system is the Kingdom of God on Earth. Capitalism isn’t. Democracy isn’t. The two combined are not. The best that can be said for them (and it is quite enough) is that, in combination, capitalism, democracy, and pluralism are more protective of the rights, opportunities, and conscience of ordinary citizens (all citizens) than any known alternative.

Better than the Third World economies, and better than the socialist economies, capitalism makes it possible for the vast majority of the poor to break out of the prison of poverty; to find opportunity; to discover full scope for their own personal economic initiative; and to rise into the middle class and higher.

Sound evidence for this proposition is found in the migration patterns of the poor of the world. From which countries do they emigrate, and to which countries do they go? Overwhelmingly they flee from socialist and Third World countries, and they line up at the doors of the capitalist countries.

A second way of bringing sound evidence to light is to ask virtually any audience, in almost any capitalist country, how many generations back in family history they have to go before they reach poverty. For the vast majority of us in the U.S. we need go back no farther than the generation of our parents or grandparents. In 1900, a very large plurality of Americans lived in poverty, barely above the level of subsistence. Most of our families today are described as affluent. Capitalist systems have raised up the poor in family memory.

The second great argument on behalf of capitalism is that it is a necessary condition for the success of democracy—a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. The instances of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Chile (after Pinochet), South Korea and others allow us to predict that once a capitalist system has generated a sufficiently large and successful middle class, the pressures for turning toward democracy become very strong. This is because successful entrepreneurs speedily recognize that they are smarter and more able than the generals and the commissars. They begin demanding self-government.

As has been recognized since ancient times, the middle class is the seedbed of the republican spirit. Capitalism tends toward democracy as the free economy tends toward the free polity. In both cases, the rule of law is crucial. In both, limited government is crucial. In both, the protection of the rights of individuals and minorities is crucial. While capitalism and democracy do not necessarily go together, particularly in the world of theory, in the actual world of concrete historical events, both their moving dynamism and their instincts for survival lead them toward a mutual embrace.

On this basis, one can predict that as the entrepreneurial spirit grows in China, particularly in its southern provinces, we can expect to see an ever stronger tide in favor of democratic institutions begin to make itself felt. The free economy will unleash forces that propel China toward the free polity.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-military-men-and-a-diplomat-trumps-national-security-candidates-1487554639

President Donald Trump interviewed four candidates for the job of national security adviser Sunday, and may meet more on Monday, a White House spokeswoman said. The vacancy was created after the president’s first adviser, Mike Flynn, resigned under pressure last week.

Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster

A military strategist with extensive battle experience, Gen. McMaster is now director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center at Fort Eustis, Va. Gen. McMaster, 54 years old, is a decorated officer with leadership experience in military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s a 1984 graduate of West Point, where he played rugby.

Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen

Gen. Caslen, 63 years old, spent his entire career in the Army, including key leadership roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975, where he was the football team’s starting center for two years. He returned as school superintendent in July 2013.

John Bolton

The security adviser role isn’t the first vacancy to cause Mr. Trump to look to John Bolton, 68. He was previously considered as a possible secretary of state, and then to be the No. 2 official in the State Department.

Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a frequent commentator on Fox News.

Keith Kellogg

Joseph Keith Kellogg Jr., 72 years old, is a retired three-star general in the U.S. Army, who has this past week been acting national security adviser following Mr. Flynn’s departure.

The acting national security adviser, retired Gen. Keith Kellogg Photo: Reuters

He served in the 101st Airborne in Vietnam, and was later a special forces adviser to the Cambodian Army.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was dismissed amid a torrent of mainstream-media reporting and disgraceful government leaks (but I repeat myself). Among the most intriguing was a New York Times report the morning after Flynn’s resignation, explaining that the former three-star Army general and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was “grilled” by FBI agents “about a phone call he had had with Russia’s ambassador.”

No fewer than seven veteran Times reporters contributed to the story, the Gray Lady having dedicated more resources to undermining the Trump administration than the Republican Congress has to advancing Trump’s agenda. Remarkably, none of the able journalists appears to have asked a screamingly obvious question — a question that would have been driving press coverage had an Obama administration operative been in the Bureau’s hot seat.

On what basis was the FBI investigating General Flynn?
To predicate an investigation under FBI guidelines, there must be good-faith suspicion that (a) a federal crime has been or is being committed, (b) there is a threat to American national security, or (c) there is an opportunity to collect foreign intelligence relevant to a priority established by the executive branch. These categories frequently overlap — e.g., a terrorist will typically commit several crimes in a plot that threatens national security, and when captured he will be a source of foreign intelligence.

Categories (a) and (b) are self-explanatory. It is category (c), intelligence collection, that is most pertinent to our consideration of Flynn.

At first blush, this category seems limitless: unmooring government investigators from the constraints that normally confine their intrusions on our liberty (e.g., snooping, search warrants, interrogations) to situations in which there is real reason to suspect unlawful or dangerous activity. Intelligence collection, after all, is just the gathering of information that can be refined into a reliable basis for decisions by policymakers.

The original story of Saint George and the Dragon dates back to the 7th century, the narrative maintaining that in a fictitious town in Libya there lived a king who chose to appease the evil dragon in the town’s lake that was poisoning the countryside. With the agreement of his subjects, the appeasement involved feeding the dragon two sheep every day. But when there were no more sheep, the King’s subjects started feeding their children to the dragon, chosen by lottery.

When one of the lots fell on the king’s daughter, he told the people they could have all his gold and silver and half his kingdom if his daughter were spared, but the people refused. As his daughter walked to the lake to be fed to the dragon, fate intervened–– Saint George happened to be riding by.

Saint George stabbed the dragon with his lance, then placed a collar around its neck and, with the princess at his side, paraded the wounded monster through the streets of the town. The townspeople were terrified, whereupon Saint George promised to slay the beast if they all converted to Christianity, which they did quite promptly. What a rich parable––with variations of course––on today’s political scene.

THE 2017 VERSION

In my version, the poisonous dragon is radical billionaire George Soros, who has made it his life’s work to poison vibrant democratic systems of government throughout the world in order to actualize his globalist vision of One World Government in which unicorns prance in gorgeous meadows, everyone speaks a polyglot Esperanto, capitalism is destroyed, food and shelter and meaning in life are provided by egomaniacs who know better than everyone else what is good for We the People, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as Jesus and Buddha, are all dead because only government is the god worthy of being worshipped.

In an interview with The L.A. Times, Soros admitted the following: “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.” And when asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

In other words, the guy actually believes he is god! That was in 2003, when Mr. Soros was investing a formidable amount of his fortune into defeating President George W. Bush in his run for a second term in office. That effort failed, but the dragon got busy with other things, including making huge investments in organizations that would carry his radical message to new heights: the progressive Media Matters for America with its obsessive pursuit and vilification of conservative media, the Secretary of State Project, focused on electing leftists to that office to oversee the election process, like they did in the 2008 Minnesota Senate race that magically produced absentee ballots which gave the election to Al Franken instead of the popular incumbent Norm Coleman.

Also, as spelled out by journalist Mike Ciandella, the radical National Council of LaRaza, the abortion factory aka Planned Parenthood, the leftist Associated Press, the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation, as described by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, ACORN known for rampant voter fraud, and the following huge number of leftist groups. And that is not to omit the over-$100 million Mr. Soros has spent on, among other of his fetishes, Obamacare, anti-illegal-immigration groups, and anti-Israel organizations.

If you ever worried about what the student snowflakes at American universities would be qualified to do after graduation, this is the perfect job for them.

Publishers are hiring “sensitivity readers” to check book manuscripts to make sure they adhere to politically correct standards.

From the Washington Post:

These days, though, a book may get an additional check from an unusual source: a sensitivity reader, a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content. These readers give feedback based on self-ascribed areas of expertise such as “dealing with terminal illness,” “racial dynamics in Muslim communities within families” or “transgender issues.”

“The industry recognizes this is a real concern,” said Cheryl Klein, a children’s and young adult book editor and author of “The Magic Words: Writing Great Books for Children and Young Adults.” Klein, who works at the publisher Lee & Low, said that she has seen the casual use of specialized readers for many years but that the process has become more standardized and more of a priority, especially in books for young readers.

Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate – fueled in part by social media – in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

Last year, for instance, J.K. Rowling was strongly criticized by Native American readers and scholars for her portrayal of Navajo traditions in the 2016 story “History of Magic in North America.” Young-adult author Keira Drake was forced to revise her fantasy novel “The Continent” after an online uproar over its portrayal of people of color and Native backgrounds. More recently, author Veronica Roth – of “Divergent” fame – came under fire for her new novel, “Carve the Mark.” In addition to being called racist, the book was criticized for its portrayal of chronic pain in its main character.

This potential for offense has some writers scared. Young-adult author Susan Dennard recently hired a fan to review her portrayal of a transgender character in her “Truthwitch” series.

“I was nervous to write a character like this to begin with, because what if I get it wrong? I could do some major damage,” Dennard said. But, she added, she felt the voice of the character was an important one that wasn’t often portrayed, so she hired a fan, who is a transgender man, just to be sure she did it right.

“Just to be sure she did it right”? By whose standards? Using what criteria? Self-censorship is still censorship and represents a threat to free speech. Certainly, portraying a black person as a shuffling, lazy character who eats fried chicken and watermelon is inappropriate. But beyond avoiding racial stereotypes, what responsibility does the author have to “marginalized” groups?

Can he portray a black man as a villain? Can he portray a woman as an airhead? Portraying “marginalized” characters as anything except heroic, smart, and beautiful is where “sensitivity readers” are driving the publishing industry.

Omar Abdel Rahman, the notorious “Blind Sheikh” who died on Friday night while serving his life sentence in federal prison, was never shy about being a terrorist. As he put it:

What kind of name is this? Why are we afraid of it? Why do we fear the word terrorist? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. And if the terrorist is the one who struggles for the sake of God, then we are terrorists. We . . . have been ordered with terrorism because we must prepare what power we can to terrorize the enemy of Allah and your enemy. The Koran says “to strike terror.” Therefore, we don’t fear to be described with “terrorism.” . . . They may say, “He is a terrorist, he uses violence, he uses force.” Let them say that. We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.

Before there was an al-Qaeda or an ISIS, there was the Blind Sheikh, known to his worldwide following as “the emir of jihad.” And he bears much of the responsibility — he would think of it as the credit — for what followed him. Indeed, bin Laden credited Sheikh Abdel Rahman with the fatwa (the sharia-law edict) that approved the 9/11 jihadist attacks in which nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered. Abdel Rahman had indeed issued such a fatwa:

Muslims everywhere to dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, . . . shoot down their planes, [and] kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them.

Having been the lead prosecutor in the trial at which he was convicted, I find that barely a day goes by that I don’t ruefully think about this. For all the praise we received for a job well done — and I am immensely proud of the work we did — we only managed to imprison him. We did not stop him.

Abdel Rahman was the central character in a memoir I wrote about the case nearly a decade ago, Willful Blindness. The title has become something of catch phrase describing the wayward American approach to counterterrorism. I meant it as something more than that — a contrast: the steely determination that underlay Abdel Rahman’s clarity of purpose that the world be ruled by Islamic law, versus our own conscious avoidance of the sharia-supremacist ideology that drives the jihadist threat, and diffidence about whether our own liberty culture is worth defending.

He was raised in the tiny Nile Delta town of al-Gamalia, where he lost his sight to juvenile diabetes in 1942, at the age of four. The sickly boy was a prodigy, memorizing the Koran at an early age and developing into a renowned scholar of Islamic jurisprudence — the discipline in which he earned a doctorate, with distinction, at storied al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning since the tenth century. Abdel Rahman was deeply influenced by Ibn Taymiyyah, the 14th-century docent who had come of age in a soul-searching time for Islamic fundamentalism: after invading Mongols routed the Abbasid Caliphate, laying Baghdad to waste. Taymiyyah championed a return to basics: a literalist interpretation of scripture and the notion that the original Islamic communities forged by the prophet Mohammed were the ideal to which all humanity must aspire.

Abdel Rahman was also affected by contemporary followers of Taymiyyah. Interestingly, one was the Shiite jihadist icon, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Notwithstanding their theological differences, Abdel Rahman perceived in Khomeini the possibilities of Islamic revolution and the exploitation of what he saw as American weakness — particularly by Hezbollah, Khomeini’s forward jihadist militia that, among other atrocities, killed 241 U.S. Marines in their Beirut barracks in 1983. “If Muslim battalions were to do five or six operations to the Americans in surprise attacks like the one that was done against them in Lebanon,” the Blind Sheikh urged, “the Americans would have exited [the Persian Gulf] and gathered their armies and gone back . . . to their country.” It was a recruitment speech he delivered hundreds of times.