RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

WASHINGTON—Republicans advanced legislation through two House committees on Thursday as part of their goal to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but signs of discord spread around the capital as conservative lawmakers warned this version of the health-law overhaul won’t pass.

On party-line votes, the committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means approved measures repealing major parts of the 2010 health law, known as Obamacare, with the goal of holding a floor vote later this month.

Conservatives fired warning shots at Republican leaders in an open challenge to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), who said Republicans could either line up behind the House bill or renege on their promise to repeal the law.

“It really comes down to a binary choice,” Mr. Ryan said. “This is the chance, and the best and only chance we’re gonna get.”

Conservatives disputed that assessment, going public with concerns that their leaders’ approach would create a new entitlement program centered on refundable tax credits and saying the bill should instead aim at reducing premiums and other costs. The first warning flare of the day was sent up Thursday morning by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who wrote on Twitter that the current House bill wouldn’t pass the Senate.

“To my friends in House: pause, start over. Get it right, don’t get it fast,” Mr. Cotton tweeted. “What matters in long run is better, more affordable health care for Americans, NOT House leaders’ arbitrary legislative calendar.” CONTINUE AT SITE

After a lifetime of radical anti-American activism and passionate legal advocacy for foreign and domestic terrorists, cop-killers, and gangsters, convicted terrorist enabler Lynne Stewart died at her home in Brooklyn – instead of in prison where she was supposed to be.

Her son said Stewart, 77, expired Tuesday from complications related to cancer and a series of strokes. Mourners who run the website of “Democracy Now!” ran a headline describing her as the “People’s Lawyer & [Former] Political Prisoner.” The article called her “[a] former teacher and librarian, [who] was known as a people’s lawyer who represented the poor and revolutionaries.”

That represents only part of the life story of the self-described “radical human rights attorney” and cheerleader for totalitarianism.

This outspoken, persistent, quick-witted woman didn’t look like a zealous subversive. She may have been a bit too extreme for many liberals but they gave her a pass because, after all, her heart was in the right place. To the Left, this Maoist who said she favored “violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions,” was an endearing, grandmotherly figure blessed with a disarming honesty.

“I’m not a pacifist,” she once said. “I have cried many bitter tears. There is death in history, and it’s not all rosebuds and memorial services. Mao, Fidel [Castro], Ho Chi Minh understood this.”

“I don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel [Castro] locking up people they see as dangerous,” Stewart told Monthly Review in 2002. “Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people’s revolution.”

This lovable, folksy ball of fluff hailed the Black Lives Matter-inspired killers who gunned down police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge last year as noble freedom fighters.

“They are avengers,” Stewart said. “They spoke for some of us when they did that.”

“They are not brazen, crazed, you know, insane killers,” she said. “They are avenging deaths that are never and have never been avenged since the ’60s and ’70s.”

Stewart likened American conservatives to the theocratic totalitarians of the Islamic world who abuse women, treating them as chattel. “The American Right,” she said, “is certainly anti-woman, anti-inclusiveness, and I certainly oppose that here in my own country for my own sake, for my children’s sake, for the way I want to live.”

She was simply misunderstood.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/cate-blanchett-on-stephen-colbert-my-moral-compass-is-in-my-vagina/news-story/b6c1f0f3e5501d7379f18bf91f59265d

OSCAR-WINNING actress Cate Blanchett has joked about the surprising location of her moral compass.

The Australian star was a guest on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, where she was promoting her debut in a Broadway play, Anton Chekhov’s The Present.

Describing the themes of the play, she said: “It’s all about as you move forward in life, what’s your moral compass. Where does kindness and humanity sit in a really brutal world.”

When Colbert asked her where her moral compass lay, she said: “It’s in my vagina.”As the audience screamed and applauded, Blanchett pretended to leave the set while an embarrassed Colbert shook her hand.

In Monday’s Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty usefully outlined some intriguing statements made by former Obama national intelligence director James Clapper regarding the FISA surveillance controversy. Clapper’s remarks, in an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on Sunday, are being taken as a blanket denial of the allegations that the Obama administration used the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Trump-campaign figures, potentially including Trump himself.

But what Clapper said is far from a wholesale rejection of the allegations. To be sure, General Clapper’s statements convincingly shoot down the claim that Trump himself was wiretapped by the government. But to my knowledge, no one has made that claim other than President Trump, in a series of controversial tweets on Saturday morning. Clapper’s statements do nothing to undermine the overarching allegation that the Obama Justice Department investigated associates of Trump who had varying connections to his campaign.

I’m going to assume the truth of General Clapper’s statements. Understandably, many commentators stress that, in the past, he has been caught testifying to things that were untrue (denying bulk metadata collection by intelligence agencies) or ridiculous (asserting that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular”). Making false or misleading statements under oath is serious business, so obviously this history weighs on Clapper’s credibility.

Still, I’ve never believed he was fundamentally a shady character. On the metadata issue, he gave an untrue answer to a senator who intentionally asked an unfair question about classified information in a public setting (though that, of course, is no justification for answering falsely). On the Muslim Brotherhood, he was dutifully toeing the Obama line — not admirable, but not shocking. Those things aside, Clapper is a longtime soldier and intelligence pro, generally well regarded by his peers. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt that, in the Sunday interview, he was trying in good faith to walk the difficult tightrope of answering questions accurately while not compromising sensitive or classified information.

Now, before parsing General Clapper’s statements, let’s rehearse the allegations that have been made about Obama-administration investigative activity against the Trump circle — understanding (as I underscored in yesterday’s column) that we are necessarily speculating based on reporting that we cannot verify because the relevant documents (if they exist) have not been disclosed.