RUTHFULLY YOURS

Editorial of The New York Sun | February 16, 2017
My only cavil is that Jeane Kirkpatrick abstained on a vote for UN resolution 487 which condemned Israel’s attack on the Osyrak reactor, entitled Iraq to sue for compensation, and urged Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. That was another really low moment in the UN….rsk

A star is born is our reaction to the first press briefing by President Trump’s new ambassador at the United Nations. The ex-governor of South Carolina was ridiculed by the Left when the president first sent her nomination up to the Hill, owing to her alleged lack of foreign policy chops. She certainly rang the wake up gong for that crowd this morning, after emerging from her first Security Council monthly meeting devoted to the Middle East. Tough as nails but with a smile and a layer of Southern charm.

The ambassador had just come from the regular monthly Security Council on Middle East issues. She said it was her first such meeting, and “it was a bit strange.” The Security Council, she said, is supposed to discuss how to maintain international peace and security. But the meeting, she said, was not about Hezbollah’s illegal buildup of rockets in Lebanon, it was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists, it was not how we defeat ISIS, it was not how we hold Beshar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of thousands of civilians.

“No,” she said, “instead the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated month after month for decades. I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to underscore to the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I am here to emphasize that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.”

The ambassador made clear that the Trump administration will not support the kind of resolution from which the Obama administration’s ambassador — Samantha Power — shamefully abstained, though Mrs. Haley was too polite to name the humiliated Ms. Power. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

“Incredibly,” Mrs. Haley said, “the U.N. department of political affairs has an entire division devoted entirely to Palestinian affairs. Imagine that. There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches form North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors, and it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us. The double standards are breathtaking.”

Trump did not cause the deep division in the country. It caused him. There are two very different Americas. I suspect that the half of the country that voted for Trump, that voted with wild enthusiasm, that roared at huge rallies, was not so much voting for Trump as against the other America. It was just that they had never had a chance before. The two countries have little in common and do not belong on the same geography.

Whether Trump proves to be the catastrophic buffoon he apparently aspires to be, the current protests illuminate a stark difference between his supporters and Hillary’s. The chasm is far deeper than just politics, embracing culture, taste, manners and morals. The groups are distinct and incompatible.

The difference begins with manners. Throughout the campaign Trump’s partisans forgathered in huge rallies, applauded, calmly went home, and later voted. At the same time we saw on Clinton’s behalf mobs of ill-bred, worse mannered, loutish, perennial adolescents blocking highways, shutting down rallies, engaging in vandalism and physically attacking supporters of Trump. Cars were destroyed, fires set, ATMs smashed. Black Lives Matter, always ghetto predators, were worst, but low-grade college students and their equally dismal professors joined in. They were obscene, infantile.

And naive: They apparently believe that they harm Trump though of course their behavior drives people in the other direction. I am no fan of Donald , but I look the foregoing and think Anything else.

The desire to shock of the eternally pubescent. Smirk, smirk, look at me, smirk, smirk.

We saw Ashley Judd, apparently an actress, addressing the “Women’s March.”

“I am not as nasty as racism, fraud, conflict of interest, homophobia, sexual assault, transphobia, white supremacy, misogyny, ignorance, white privilege. I’m not as nasty as using little girls like Pokemon before their bodies have even developed. I am not as nasty as your own daughter being your favorite sex symbol, like your wet dreams infused with your own genes.”

The astonishing thing is not that some foul-mouthed twit came up with such cloacal gush, but that the “Women’s March” sponsored her, did not eject or even censure her.

Can you imagine any of Trump’s middle-American supporters accusing Obama of lusting for incest with his daughters? The two camps are different peoples. Half of the country seems culturally dominated from the ghetto. The other half embodies standards of behavior that have usually been thought congruent with civil society. While Trump himself is crass, making menstrual jibes on the air at Megyn Kelly for example, his supporters are not.

Any number of arguments can be adduced against Trump but so much of the outpouring of hostility, even from the intelligent, lacks thought. Thisaphobe, thataphobe, Nazi, misogynist. Putin’s Bitch. Most seem not to know what the words mean, or care.

Like an insidious virus, the name Rasmieh (also spelled Rasmea) Odeh keeps popping up in the news. This time her name has appeared in connection with a “Women’s March” event where group organizers, including Odeh, have advocated “striking, marching and blocking roads,” in protest against President Donald Trump. Organizers have referred to the Trump administration as “aggressively misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic and racist.” The irony of course is that one of the prime organizers of this event was responsible for murdering two Jewish university students simply because they had the temerity to be born Jewish.

Odeh has also been invited to speak at an event hosted by “Jewish Voice for Peace,” a hate group that is neither Jewish nor peaceful and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and expulsion of its indigenous inhabitants. The list of other featured speakers includes a cacophony of vitriolic Islamo-fascists, well versed in the art of hate and bigotry. Lindar Sarsour, a rancid Jew-hater elevated to the status of Goddess by the radical left and Diana Buttu, a PLO shill who defended Hamas rocket attacks, among a host of other miscreants, will share the dais with Odeh.

Odeh should have been jailed and deported from the U.S. years ago but a lax immigration system allowed her to fraudulently obtain U.S. citizenship and astonishingly, attain employment as an Obamacare worker.

Odeh was an active member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a violent group that indoctrinates its members in a convoluted mix of Marxism and Islamist supremacy. It is also listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the United States. The Odeh saga began on February 21, 1969 when she along with her terrorist cohorts conspired to plant bombs at a Jerusalem supermarket and at the British consulate office located nearby.

As a result of her actions, two university students — Leon Kaner, 21, and Edward Jaffe, 22, — were killed and nine others were injured. Odeh and her gang were apprehended days later by Israeli police. Physical evidence obtained at the scene undeniably linked her to the crime and she confessed to her role almost immediately. Odeh was sentenced to life imprisonment but was released in a prisoner swap after serving just ten years. Following her release, she lived in Lebanon for four years and then moved to Jordan. From Jordan, she moved to the United States.

In 1995 she filled out an application for an immigrant visa and alien registration and in 2004, she applied for US citizenship and filled out an application for naturalization. She fibbed on both forms denying ever belonging to a terrorist organization. She also denied her past criminal activity, arrest, conviction and prison sentence. She then orally repeated the fabrications when questioned by an officer with Department of Homeland Security.

Editor’s note: Below is the third installment in a series of articles highlighting the network of major hate groups in America that are supported and funded by the Left. Click the following for the previous profile on the Souther Poverty Law Center and Students for Justice in Palestine.

Founded in 1990, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP) is a militant black separatist organization that promotes racial violence against Jews and whites. NBPP preaches a “Ten-Point Platform” similar to its that of its namesake – the murderous Black panther Party of the 1960s and ’70s – demanding such things as: “full employment for our [black] people,” in light of the fact that “the white man has … used every dirty trick in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence”; “the overdue debt of reparations” from “this wicked racist government [that] has robbed us”; exemption for blacks “from all taxation”; and “education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society.”

Khalid Abdul Muhammad, a onetime spokesman for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, joined NBPP in the mid-1990s and by1998 had become NBPP’s chairman. He earned a reputation as an inveterate racist and anti-Semite by characterizing Jews as “slumlords in the black community” who were busy “sucking our [blacks’] blood on a daily and consistent basis”; asserting that Jews had provoked Adolf Hitler when they “went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they go, and they supplanted, they usurped”; telling a San Francisco State University audience that “the white man is the Devil”; declaring that blacks, in retribution against South African whites of the apartheid era, should “kill them all”; and praising a black man who had shot some twenty white and Asian commuters in a racially motivated shooting spree aboard a New York commuter train as a hero who possessed the courage to “just kill every goddamn cracker that he saw.” Muhammad also advised blacks that “[t]here are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”

When Muhammad died in February 2001, he was succeeded as NBPP chairman by his longtime protégé, Malik Zulu Shabazz. At a rally the previous summer, Shabazz had openly called for a race war in which black young people would unite against the “common enemy” so that “we will see caskets and funerals in the[ir] community.”

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NBPP promoted numerous conspiracy theories alleging Jewish complicity. NBPP officer Amir Muhammad, for instance, suggested that Jews had been forewarned about the terror plot and thus had stayed away from the attack sites on 9/11: “There are reports that as many as 3,000 to 5,000 so-called Jews did not go to work [at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon] that day, and we need to take a serious look at that.”

In yet another false claim, NBPP has consistently maintained that Jews were “significantly and substantially” involved in the transatlantic slave trade.

The so-called scandal involving former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn is 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Iran-Contra, Watergate, proof of presidential fascism, a cynical money-making scheme, and a pro-Russian spy thriller all rolled into one, according to the increasingly deranged rants of howling left-wingers and their truth-adverse confederates in the mainstream media.

Despite this relentless barrage of fake news and smears, President Donald Trump pushed back against the orchestrated campaign against him yesterday at what is sure to go down in history as The Best Presidential Press Conference of All Time as he gave the mainstream media the beat-down it deserves. (See transcript.)

“To give you an idea how Trump’s press conference went, afterwards, the press corps demanded a safe space,” Ann Coulter tweeted of the 77-minute long White House event, Trump’s first solo presser as president. “I wish this press conference could go on all day.”

“The public doesn’t believe you people anymore,” a ferocious, animated Trump told the assembled press corps. “Maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.”

“This whole Russia scam that you guys” are pushing on people is “so you don’t talk about the real subject which is illegal leaks.”

“The public sees it,” he said. “They see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred. And the public is smart. They understand it.”

“I didn’t do anything for Russia,” he said. “I have done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember with the stupid plastic button that made us look like a bunch of jerks.”

A mewling Chuck Todd of NBC was offended by the president’s conduct at the press conference and tweeted, “This [is] not a laughing matter. I’m sorry, delegitimizing the press is un-American[.]”

Perhaps he shouldn’t have signed on to the effort to delegitimize President Trump.

Todd, of course, is one the members of the media out to get Trump.

He recently said the invented Flynn-Russia crisis is “arguably the biggest presidential scandal involving a foreign government since Iran-Contra.”

It may be tiresome and whiny, but there’s a reason President Donald Trump keeps reminding us that he won the election. We’re almost a month into his presidency and somehow we’re still discussing whether he should have been elected. The questions about his fitness were serious enough that many conservatives refused to vote for him. But from the moment he took office, the only relevant questions about Trump have been whether his policies are sound and well executed.

Instead, his opponents are still spending an inordinate amount of time telling us something we already knew: Donald Trump is not an ordinary president and the things he says and tweets are often offensive, foolish, and/or untrue. As he proved twice this week at press conferences, he can’t even answer straightforward questions about anti-Semitism and racism — the sorts of questions any normal politician would consider softballs — without treating the query as a personal insult and an excuse to rant about the press rather than say the few simple words that would put the matter to rest.

As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne put it yesterday, it is Trump’s “approach to leadership” that is the core reason his opponents are determined to “resist” his government and topple it. That’s why they regard the leaks of secret surveillance tapes and transcripts of Michael Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador as not merely convenient but completely justified.

The controversy over alleged contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians is worth investigating. But since the key point in the New York Times report on the matter was that nothing the intelligence community has discovered points to any collusion between the Trump team and the Kremlin, the leaks that brought it all to light weren’t some patriotic attempt to inform the public that Trump’s or Flynn’s loyalty was in question; they were an attempt to embarrass and undermine the new administration.

Those who point out Trump’s hypocritical response to the leaks are not wrong. On the stump during the campaign, he was positively gleeful in describing the e-mails written by John Podesta and DNC officials and published by WikiLeaks. But liberals have engaged in the same hypocrisy, screaming bloody murder about WikiLeaks while touting each new anonymously sourced revelation about the Trump administration.

The key question of the moment isn’t whether this is a president who offends the sensibilities even of many of those who would like to support him. It’s whether any of this justifies government employees’ efforts to take down a sitting president with classified leaks. Whether or not you despise Trump, the answer to that question must be “no.”

Writers such as Dionne have a right to think Trump is unfit to be president. But there is nothing laudable about the anti-Trump resistance’s moving from street protests to the offices of disgruntled government officials, especially those tasked with protecting the nation’s secrets. The willingness of the intelligence community to take out Flynn with a flurry of leaks ought to scare all Americans. In the absence of evidence that Flynn’s conduct was illegal, these leaks must be viewed as part of a policy dispute rather than as an effort to protect American national security.

The intelligence community is right to worry about Trump’s puzzling crush on Vladimir Putin and his desire to appease the Russians rather than to confront them. Many conservatives rightly share those concerns. But even if Trump’s coddling of Putin is naïve or worse, that doesn’t put government employees who use illegal leaking to hamstring his efforts on a higher moral plane than the president.

If the “March of Parts” women’s protest in Washington, D.C. on January 22 wasn’t enough to leave you begging for eye bleach, apparently, the crowd of perpetually aggrieved protest organizers are gearing up again. They’ve hijacked March 8 (formerly known as International Women’s Day) and renamed it the “Day without a Woman.”

Aside from word salad gymnastics, organizers published a plethora of questions regarding their cause. Their litany is as follows:

In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day without a Woman. We ask: do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities? Do they strive for gender equity or do they support the policies and leaders that perpetuate oppression? Do they align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children? We saw what happened when millions of us stood together in January, and now we know that our army of love greatly outnumbers the army of fear, greed and hatred. On March 8th, International Women’s Day, let’s unite again in our communities for A Day without a Woman. Over the next few weeks we will be sharing more information on what actions on that day can look like for you. In the meantime, we are proud to support Strike4Democracy’s as National Day of Action to Push Back against Assaults on Democratic Principles. This Friday, February 17th, gather your friends, families, neighbors, and start brainstorming ideas for how you can enhance your community, stand up to this administration, integrate resistance and self-care into your daily routine, and how you will channel your efforts for good on March 8th. Remember: this is a marathon, not a sprint.

Confused? If the overarching goal is to rally women across the country into a cohesive and riled up mob of estrogen-fueled resistance, it would certainly behoove the organizers to clarify exactly what they are resisting. As a rule, keeping it simple always works – like when the crowd gathered in front of the Supreme Court building on the evening President Trump announced his SCOTUS nominee. Easy-peasy – the protesters brought along blank signs and, using markers, simply penciled in the name “Gorsuch.” The same can’t be said for the “Day without a Woman” planners. Nothing the organizers have offered up is simple, easy to understand, or coherent.

Diving into the murky mix, “Do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities?” The obvious answer is…what businesses, which communities, and do we have a plumbing problem? Serving a big plate of nothingburger isn’t very inspiring and doesn’t give potential planners much to go on, if in fact large numbers of disgruntled and angry women will actually gather on February 17 to brainstorm. And what about those businesses owned by women? Or is the target of organized resistance directed only at businesses owned by men?

During the course of the brainstorming sessions, women are also asked to consider questions on gender equity (really? all 56 genders?), support for policies (policies regarding what and written by whom?), and identifying leaders (using the anonymous nondescript “they” reference) who perpetuate oppression.

It’s worth noting that no list of factionless oppressed people, groups, clusters, or subsets of the larger oppressed set was provided with the organizing statement. Also missing is a comprehensive list of villainous oppressors. Oppressed women have to be oppressed by someone, right? Surely, someone has a list?

Moving along and keeping up with the current politically correct groupspeak, women should also discuss leaders or perhaps companies (the reference is not clearly defined) that align with a sustainable environment, while tossing around terms like profit (the horror!), greed (a Pavlovian response in Socialist circles), destruction (maybe referring back to the environment?), and “for the children” (Progressive Liberal groupthink trigger words used to emit guilt). Surprisingly, the anthropomorphic climate change screed was not directly mentioned – unless, of course, “sustainable environment” is the adopted catch-all phrase to include the “hottest year ever” meme, which now occurs every year and will be officially declared every year…going forward. Or CO2 is bad. Take your pick.

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s second choice for labor secretary, veteran federal attorney Alexander Acosta, has a potentially smoother path to confirmation than the controversial fast-food executive who came before him.

Mr. Acosta, who was named Thursday, has already passed muster with senators three times, winning confirmation under President George W. Bush for a position on the National Labor Relations Board, as assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He has been dean at Florida International University’s law school since 2009.

Mr. Acosta would be the first Hispanic member of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.
The record of public service by the 48-year-old stands in sharp contrast to that of Andy Puzder, the executive who withdrew himself from consideration for the labor post Wednesday. Personal controversies emerged after Mr. Puzder was picked in December, the most glaring of several vetting glitches the Trump administration has faced.

Mr. Acosta’s nomination is “off to a good start,” because he has been previously cleared by the Senate, said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the chairman of the committee overseeing the confirmation.

“He has an impressive work and academic background,” Mr. Alexander said. “I look forward to exploring his views on how American workers can best adjust to the rapidly changing workplace.”

Mr. Trump announced his choice at a press conference in the White House’s East Room on Thursday. Mr. Acosta wasn’t in attendance, possibly a reflection of the speed with which the president moved less than 24 hours after Mr. Puzder withdrew himself from consideration.

Mr. Trump said Mr. Acosta would be “tremendous” in the job, noting his credential as a Harvard-educated attorney. Mr. Trump said he spoke with Mr. Acosta about the position earlier Thursday.

Many of the president’s nominees have faced contentious fights in the Senate, and several cabinet posts remain vacant nearly a month into Mr. Trump’s term. A less controversial pick in Mr. Acosta could signal the White House is anxious to win speedy approval and begin altering former President Barack Obama’s labor policies. CONTINUE AT SITE