RUTHFULLY YOURS

Chelsea Clinton is not fascinating. But the repeated insistence that Chelsea Clinton is fascinating . . . is actually rather fascinating. It’s like a giant social experiment, in which everyone who has spent decades building connections to the Clinton political dynasty attempts to make the world see the president’s daughter as someone she isn’t.

Witness the recent insistence that we’re seeing a new side of Chelsea Clinton . . . because she’s tweeting a lot of critical things about President Trump. This is not particularly unusual behavior for a Democrat with a Twitter account. Yet Politico declares that she “lets loose on Twitter” with “a spicy, sarcastic online personality.” CNN concurs that “Chelsea Clinton embraces her Twitter sass.”

Almost every time the younger Clinton opens her mouth, it is treated as inherently newsworthy. Neontaster notices that The Hill has tweeted about her 70 times since the beginning of the year.

Why is Chelsea Clinton news? She’s the scion of America’s most famous Democratic dynasty, sure, but her own accomplishments in public life are meager. When can we stop pretending that hers is a voice worth listening to?

In fact, she’s pretty much the worst possible person to be speaking on behalf of Democrats right now. At a time when one of the preeminent problems in American life is a sense of declining economic opportunity and social mobility, she’s the living embodiment of inherited privilege.

After a few years of attempting to work in consulting and at hedge funds, she concluded she “couldn’t care about money on a fundamental level.” Then, with no experience in television journalism, she had her people call up the networks and set up a bidding war for her services as a correspondent. She made $600,000 per year for part-time work at NBC, generating what the Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik called “a handful of reports that no self-respecting affiliate in a top 20 market would air.”

She was named an “assistant vice provost” at NYU at age 30. She was picked to give the keynote address at South by Southwest, and honored as one of Glamour magazine’s “Women of the Year.” Now she makes $1,083 per minute speaking to public universities. And almost everything she does is decreed to be extraordinary by a pliant, pro-Clinton media. The New York Times even interviewed her about her favorite books.

American infrastructure has barely maintained a below-standard grade of “D+” over the last four years, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.

In its “Infrastructure Report Card” issued every four years, the engineering group forecast that it would cost about $4.590 trillion over the next decade to bring the country’s roads, bridges, public schools and ports up to a safe, functioning level, about $2.064 trillion more than what governments and the private sector are ready to spend.

The association, based in Reston, Va., called for infrastructure investment to increase from the current level of about 2.5% of U.S. gross domestic product to 3.5% by 2025.
“When it comes to your infrastructure you should be worried,” said Norma Jean Mattei, 2017 president of ASCE. “President Trump is onto something as he calls for a new program of national rebuilding.”
President Donald Trump has promised to increase infrastructure investment partly as a way to spur job growth. In his recent address to Congress, Mr. Trump said he would propose legislation aimed at generating a $1 trillion investment in U.S. infrastructure, financed through both public and private capital.

Aging infrastructure continues to create problems for communities around the country, from lead pipes contaminating the water supply in Flint, Mich., to U.S. ports struggling to handle larger volumes and a recent crisis at the Oroville Dam in northern California, where heavy rains almost caused a spillway to give way and about 200,000 people had to be evacuated.

The association’s infrastructure team looked at 16 infrastructure categories and found some areas grew worse in the last four years while other areas improved slightly. CONTINUE AT SITE

We cannot have faster approval for new drugs unless we have serious tort reform….pharma companies have to contend with litigations, which, in some cases have no statute of limitations ….rsk
President Donald Trump plans to nominate Scott Gottlieb, a conservative thinker and medical doctor with previous government experience, to run the Food and Drug Administration, the White House said Friday.

Dr. Gottlieb, who has ties to the drug industry, previously served as deputy FDA commissioner under President George W. Bush.

Dr. Gottlieb also is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal opinion pages and a prolific writer on FDA topics. He has promoted provocative views that in some cases would mean less regulation from the nation’s leading medical-products and food-supervisory agency.
His views appear aligned with those of the Trump administration, especially since Dr. Gottlieb generally favors faster product approvals. Mr. Trump has described the FDA product-approval process as “slow and burdensome.”

Dr. Gottlieb supports the core mission of the FDA, and he has long experience with the medical and legal principles he would deal with in the job, which likely would ease his path to Senate confirmation. He is a cancer survivor who is a 1994 graduate of Wesleyan University and holds a 1999 M.D. degree from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

Dr. Gottlieb wins plaudits from people of different political backgrounds. Kavita Patel, a doctor and former Obama administration official now with the Brookings Institution, said, “I found that even when I would occasionally disagree with him on policy, I appreciated that he would take the time to listen.”

Dr. Gottlieb could bring significant changes to the FDA. He wrote in a recent piece in National Affairs that decisions on new drugs should ultimately be made not by the current group of drug reviewers but by a “central committee that is comprised of the agency’s most senior scientists.” CONTINUE AT SITE

CNN has done something no other media have done. They actually found a connection between American Betrayal and Steve Bannon.

Not that this is hard to do. There is a massive queue of stories about American Betrayal at Breitbart under Bannon’s helmsmanship.

These include:

1) A “breaking history” series in five parts that I wrote for Bannon/Breitbart, drawing from American Betrayal’s discoveries.

2) Numerous pieces covering American Betrayal, the controversy (i.e., the disinformation campaign spearheaded by Horowitz and Radosh), as a continuous news beat amid a total news blackout at other conservative media.

3) Op-eds about American Betrayal by David “she should not have written this book” Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, myself, etc.

4) Two lengthy essays co-authored by Vladimir Bukovsky about the book and the controversy — “Why Academics Hate Diana West” and “West’s `American Betrayal’ Will Make History.”

5) My replies to hit pieces at National Review, American Thinker, which I published at Breitbart after these same conservative websites refused to run what I had written.

6) Breitbart also published Chapter 9 of American Betrayal in its entirety!

7) There were so many lies told by Radosh and Horowitz about my book and me, personally, that, on the advice of counsel, I wrote 20,000+ words rebutting all — and Breitbart ran every word in a three-part series, which I later brought out as a book, The Rebuttal: Defending American Betrayal Against the Book-Burners.

There are some related bonuses as well. As a follow-on to his second essay about American Betrayal, Bukovsky would publish the opening chapter of his book, Judgement in Moscow, for the first time in English at Breitbart.

The late M. Stanton Evans, a strong supporter of American Betrayal, would also publish an original essay at Breitbart. It was a project he conceived of during the attacks against my book, so many of which hinged on the continuing slander and belittlement of Joseph Raymond McCarthy, the subject of Stan Evans’ unrivaled expertise. (For instance, I was called “McCarthy on Steroids,” “McCarthy’s heiress” and other terms not meant as endearments.) Indeed, the exciting new kind of research I was able to do in American Betrayal was predicated on my first having read Evans’ trailblazing McCarthy book.

As noted here, CNN recently “reported” the following:

“Steve Bannon in 2013: Joseph McCarthy was right in crusade against Communist infiltration.”

… Bannon made his comments in July 2013 while interviewing conservative pundit Diane [sic] West about her book “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character.”

These statements of facts engender hisses, screams, fainting — but only among media and other fact-proof ideologues. Informed readers will just shake their heads over the hermetically-sealed mindset that kills curiosity and engenders such Pavlovian-prompt reporting.

As in — excerpted from American Betrayal, p. 72

McCarthy, bad.

Communists, good and/or nonexistent.

Anti-Communism, terrible.

Who cares what Venona says, outside of a few academics? Have you left no

sense of decency?

Or, to take a longer excerpt, from pp 229-230.

Left, Good; Right, Bad.

“The people,” good; We, the People, “imperialist.”

Individuals (especially businessmen), greedy.

Hollywood Blacklist, bad.

Hollywood Ten, martyrs (except “squealer” Dmytryk).

Elia Kazan, Judas.

Communists: persecuted freethinkers. Have you left no sense of decency?

McCarthyism: repression.

Mao, expensive decorative art.

Che Guevara, fashion statement.

Ho Chi Minh, agrarian.

Mommy, who’s Ho Chi Minh, and what’s an agrarian?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Thursday that he would consider appointing an outside counsel to look into actions taken by the Department of Justice during the Obama years.

Hewitt asked Sessions if he would be open to appointing an outside counsel to review the DOJ’s actions regarding the IRS case, the Fast and Furious case, and Secretary Clinton’s server.

The Department just “had a bad eight years,” Hewitt said. “How about an outside counsel, not connected to politics, to review the DOJ’s actions in those matters with authority to bring charges if underlying crimes are uncovered in the course of the investigation, and just generally to look at how the Department of Justice operated in the highly-politicized Holder-Lynch years?”

Sessions committed to nothing, but didn’t dismiss the idea out of hand, either.

“Well, I’m going to do everything I possibly can to restore the independence and professionalism of the Department of Justice,” he said. “So we would have to consider whether or not some outside special counselor is needed. Generally, a good review of that internally is the first step before any such decision is made.”

Hewitt pressed Sessions on the IRS targeting scandal in particular.

“Will you be looking at the IRS investigation specifically?” he asked. “Because that left many of us thinking that the Department of Justice had laid down for a terrible abuse of political power.”

Sessions agreed, saying “that circumstance raised a lot of questions in my mind when I was in the Senate. So it is a matter of real concern to me.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Left-wing billionaire George Soros has given nearly a quarter of a billion dollars over the past fourteen years to groups that sponsored Wednesday’s “Day Without a Woman” protest, according to the Media Research Council.

Soros gave $246 million to 100 prominent left-wing groups that partnered with the Women’s March, including Planned Parenthood, the Center for American Progress, and People for the American Way (PFAW).

Those donations represent just a fragment of Soros’ massive global influence. His Open Society Foundations have given away more than $13 billion to push his globalist, anti-American views.

The media turned the march into a celebration of anti-Trump sentiment and ignored or downplayed negative stories. Those ranged from Soros’ backing of the groups involved, controversial event partners such as the Communist Party and Madonna’s F-bomb laden tirade against President Donald Trump that included her fantasies about “blowing up the White House.”

Other prominent organizers and supporters of the Woman’s March include convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh, Communist former Black Panther Angela Davis, and convicted torture/murderess Donna Hylton.

The Women’s March claimed to stand for “vibrant and diverse communities.” However, it hawked the same worn-out liberal ideals of “LGBTQIA rights” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual), abortion, “environmental justice” and others.

Soros, the 19th richest man in America with a net worth of $24.9 billion, according Forbes, gave more than $246 million to 100 of the Women’s March partner groups over 14 years. He distributed the money through personal contributions and donations from his Open Society Foundations (OSF). Donation records from OSF are only available for 2000 to 2014, meaning Soros’ total donations were most likely much greater.

The biggest recipients included cornerstones of the activist left — the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Planned Parenthood and Center for American Progress. These four organizations have all worked against conservative values.

Attempts to delegitimize President Donald Trump by characterizing him as an antisemite are fatuous, repulsive and demonstrates little or no understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. The failure of the administration to recognize Jews in the Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day produced a torrent of criticism.

The administration’s slow condemnation of the desecration of the Chesed Shel Emeth Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri as soon as the vandalism occurred, caused additional angst. It should be noted, Vice President Mike Pence strongly denounced the wave of antisemitic acts, and visited the cemetery to assist in repairing the damage.

By not immediately condemning the bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers and offering reassurance that steps would be taken to protect the Jewish community were viewed by a number of Jews as a dangerous sign.

To a reasonable observer, it appeared that the president’s response to Jake Turx, a haredi reporter for Ami Magazine, who asked how his administration will handle the increase in antisemitic acts in the US, was defensive and rushed. Rather than allowing the journalist to finish his question, the president attempted to disarm what must have seemed to him to be another hostile reporter. While clearly coming to the wrong conclusion, this degree of insensitivity, and the corresponding initial reluctance to speak out against antisemitism caused concern. Yet none of these examples indicate whatsoever that the president is antisemitic or supports antisemitism. The idea is so ludicrous that it defies all logic.

Before accusing someone of being antisemitic, one should have an actual basis for making such a serious allegation. Indiscriminate labeling an individual an antisemite distorts the gravity of the accusation and becomes the equivalent of crying wolf.

Defining Antisemitism

How then do we define antisemitism? Efforts to define what historian Robert S. Wistrich called “The Longest Hatred,” have been attempted since the German journalist Wilhelm Marr first coined the term in 1870. On January 28, 2005, the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), arrived at a definition, which remains the accepted standard for evaluating expressions of antisemitism.

As Jews celebrate Purim this Saturday night, a surprising figure could be making an appearance in some synagogues: Steve Bannon. What might the controversial presidential adviser have to do with the Jewish holiday?

Purim celebrates the deliverance of the Jews of ancient Persia from death at the hands of an evil government official named Haman. The story, told in the Book of Esther, shows how the beautiful Esther, with her cousin Mordechai’s guidance, became queen and helped turn the tables on Haman. Esther opened King Ahasuerus’ eyes to Haman’s designs and thus saved the Jews. Purim is a classic Jewish holiday. As the old joke goes, “They tried to kill us. We won. Let’s eat.”

But there’s more to Purim than eating. Jews are required to hear the tale read from the Book of Esther, to give gifts of food to at least two other Jews, and to participate in a festive meal that includes certain holiday-specific blessings. Many Jews also dress in costume and attend a humorous play at their synagogue.

This performance, known as Purim Shpiel, has a long history. In Europe it often parodied bits of rabbinical literature. Today the Shpiel mocks current events, celebrities or well-known community members. One can order prewritten Shpiel scripts and songs, with titles like “Oyklahoma” and “Middle East Side Story.”

The Shpiel often includes a playful recreation of the Purim story, with new individuals filling in as some of the main characters. Haman has evolved as the ultimate evil, a villain driven by hatred to destroy the Jewish people. According to Holocaust survivor Solly Ganor, a 1945 Purim Shpiel in the Dachau concentration camp alluded to Adolf Hitler as Haman. In the 1990s, Saddam Hussein earned the Haman designation during the Gulf War, when he was firing missiles at Israel.

Some Shpiels last year featured then-candidate Donald Trump as Haman. New York Jewish Week’s Gary Rosenblatt predicts even more such comparisons this year, albeit with the roles tweaked. As president, Mr. Trump will likely stand in as King Ahasuerus. Mr. Bannon, a close adviser, would take the role of Haman. Anyone considering these designations should reconsider.