ISRAEL Comments turned off

No, Israel is not starving the people of Gaza It’s the latest piece of heinous propaganda used to denounce the Jewish State: Jake Wallis Simons

Posted By on July 1st, 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/

This may come as some surprise, but only three per cent of the residents of Rafah, in Gaza, were poorly fed in May, according to the United Nations. In Khan Yunis and the central town of Deir al Balah, that figure stood at six per cent. The biggest challenges were faced by those who had failed to evacuate from the north at the start of the campaign. There, 13 per cent were found to be hungry. The overwhelming majority of Gazans had “acceptable” quantities of food.

Now consider the situation before Hamas brought catastrophe to Gaza. Despite billions of dollars of aid money pouring into the Strip, 14 per cent of the population faced hunger in 2022, according to a contemporaneous study by the World Food Programme. So it appears that provisions are better now than they were when Hamas was in charge.

Not that you’d know it from the reporting. In its analysis, the UN grudgingly concluded that it was “unable to endorse” the classification made by the likes of the head of the World Food Programme, who had claimed that Gaza had entered a “full-blown famine”. Was there an apology? Nope. The new line, spun by the UN and amplified by the BBC and fellow travellers, was that Gazans faced “catastrophic levels” of hunger.

Without wishing to minimise the deprivations of war, here was an object lesson in propaganda in the age of mass media. 

Step eagerly forward the Guardian, which on Tuesday published an article headlined “The starvation of Gaza is a perverse repudiation of Judaism’s values”. The author, John Oakes, is a radical American intellectual, whose authority appears to rest on his book about the history of fasting. Whether he knows anything about the conflict or Judaism, or has ever met anybody from Gaza, is unclear. According to his website, his second book will be about the nature of intelligence.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

No auditory illusions about it : Ruthie Blum

Posted By on July 1st, 2024

https://www.jns.org/no-auditory-illusions-about-it/

The debate on Thursday evening between U.S. President Joe Biden and predecessor Donald Trump is a gift that keeps on giving. Every syllable spoken by the two presumptive nominees continues to be the focus of both serious and comedic discourse.

Only a handful of desperate straw-graspers are rejecting the consensus opinion that the incumbent’s performance revealed an unacceptable level of age-related brain fog. Even those of his ardent supporters in the media who’ve been telling us not to believe our lying eyes realized that the jig was up.

Fearing electoral defeat in November, especially to Trump, they instantly altered the narrative to one of sadness about the inescapable conclusion that Joe must go. Barack Obama’s feeble attempt at obfuscating the disaster—by posting on X, “Bad debate nights happen”—hasn’t made a dent in the Democrats’ scramble to persuade Biden to back out of the race and settle on a replacement.

And with good reason, from their standpoint. Indeed, Biden didn’t merely have a “bad debate night.” His whatever-stage dementia was on full display.

First Lady “Dr. Jill” hit home this reality particularly hard when, post-fiasco, she cheered in nursery-school-teacher singsong to her husband: “You answered every question! You knew all the facts!”

Cringeworthy doesn’t begin to describe the scene. Nor does it do justice to the entire exchange between the two senior citizens, one a few years younger than the other, but with all his faculties, as farcical as they often seem.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

Who Should Get To ‘Finish The Job’? The Answer Was Clear Before The Debate

Posted By on July 1st, 2024

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/07/01/who-should-voters-let-finish-the-job-biden-or-trump/

Aside from repeatedly calling Donald Trump a liar, the only message President Joe Biden managed to convey during last week’s debate was that Trump left him a terrible mess to clean up.

The first words out of his mouth in the debate were: “You have to take a look at what I was left when I became president, what Mr. Trump left me. We had an economy that was in freefall.”

And his closing remarks began: “We’ve made significant progress from the debacle that was left by President Trump in his – in his last term.”

It’s clear why Biden’s debate prep team wanted those to be the first thing he said — before he wandered off into a maze of half-completed sentences. The Biden administration has seen the polls. It knows that the public doesn’t view things this way.

CBS News, for example, reported recently that: “Voters recall the economy under Trump more fondly than they rate the economy now. While neither gets great marks, voters today look back on Trump’s presidency with relatively better retrospective ratings than they’d rate Mr. Biden’s presidency so far.”

So who’s right? Whose policies did a better job of spurring growth, raising wages, keeping the country safe?

There is, thankfully, an objective way to answer this. Compare where things stood at comparable points in each presidency to see who was doing a better job – and whose policies are worth pursuing over the next four years.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

‘We Don’t Want Churches, We Want Mosques’: The Persecution of Christians, May 2024 by Raymond Ibrahim

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20737/we-dont-want-churches-we-want-mosques

A raging Muslim mob attacked and savagely beat a 74-year-old Christian man, on what turned out to be a false accusation of “blasphemy”. Nine days later, on June 3, Nazir Masih Gill died from his many injuries, including a smashed skull. — Morning Star News, June 3, 2024, Pakistan.

The Muslim employer of Saima Bibi, a 24-year-old Christian woman, dragged her outside and shoved her toward an electric chaff cutter—which sliced off one of her ears, cut off most of her scalp, and injured an eye. Her husband, Shahzad, who worked on the same farm and was present, said that one of their employers, Muhammad Mustafa, was angry that they were taking a break and ordered them to cut fodder for the cattle. — Morning Star News, May 15, 2024, Pakistan.

Shahid Masih, a 35-year-old Christian dairy worker, was falsely accused of theft and subjected to “merciless torture” at the hands of Muhammad Ijaz. It included forcing him to ingest acid, from which he died in the hospital 11 days later…. Last reported, authorities are refusing to prosecute Muhammad Ijaz and his murderous accomplices. — britishasianchristians.org, May 15, 2024, Pakistan.

“Christian sanitation workers work long shifts even in extreme weather conditions…. these workers are often ridiculed and mistreated because of their Christian faith…. They often face salary delays and no job security. They are discriminated against even by their Muslim colleagues, and now we are witnessing incidents of physical violence against these weak people.” — Sunil Gulzar, Christian socio-political activist, Morning Star News, May 29, 2024, Pakistan.

Many other attacks on churches in France persisted throughout the month of May, including arson attacks, general desecrations, desecrations of cemeteries, defecations in churches and urination in their baptismal fonts, and bomb threats. — France.

“Imagine the uproar if it was Christians throwing rocks at a mosque? MPs and the media would be all over it screaming ‘Islamophobia!'” — Tommy Robinson, British activist, x.com, May 1, 2024, England.

The Church of the Holy Trinity was vandalized with Islamic graffiti, which included “Allah Akbar,” “Remove this church from here,” “Only Muslims are here,” “We don’t want churches, we want mosques,” and “Islam is the only true religion!” — orthodoxtimes.com, May 15, 2024, Kosovo.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

Why the Democrats lied about Joe Biden’s frailty The presidential debate has exposed the ruthlessness of the American establishment. Brendan O’Neill

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/28/why-the-democrats-lied-about-joe-bidens-frailty/

So this is how republics die. Not with a bang but with the hoarse ramblings of their ageing leaders. Few events have shone a light on ‘American decline’ as much as Joe Biden’s sad, impassive performance in last night’s CNN presidential debate. Here was the leader of the free world speaking in faint, broken tones, and struggling to stay focussed, and at points seeming to blank out entirely. Before the eyes of the world, it became clear: this man is too old, too frail and too infirm to be at the helm of America.

And yet, Old Joe’s physical infirmity is not the thing that should horrify us. Everyone ages, everyone withers. No, it is the moral infirmity of the Democratic establishment that is truly chilling. It is those who are so bent on power that they’ll force a frail man on to the world stage to do their bidding who deserve our ire. It is the media movers and shakers who said ‘Joe is fine’, and who damned the concerned as ageist cranks, who have behaved atrociously. Behind Biden’s physical decay is the far graver problem of the moral decay of a ruling class that will lie, gaslight and bully just to stay on top.

The debate was a dreadful spectacle. No one can now deny that Biden is not fit for the highest office in the Western world. Even Donald Trump seemed to put a lid on his usual piss-taking, perhaps clocking that Biden’s decline is now too serious for wisecracks. Although at one point, after Biden breathlessly mumbled something about border control, Trump snuck in a jibe: ‘I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said, either.’ The vacant, doleful look on Biden’s face in response to Trump’s swipe was painful to see.

At times, Biden glitched completely. Fourteen minutes into proceedings, and then again 22 minutes into proceedings, his mental faculties seemed to betray him and he just stalled. The moderator, Jake Tapper, had to save him at one point, delivering a merciful ‘Thank you, Mr President’ after he malfunctioned during a muddled commentary on Covid or Medicare or something. He even fluffed his attack on Trump over his lack of physical prowess. ‘You can see he is six feet five and only 224 pounds. Or 20… 30… five pounds’, he said, weakly, strangely. In trying to land a blow on Trump over alleged ill-health, he hurt only himself.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

SCOTUS Rulings, Biden-Trump Debate Shake Up Political Landscape This week, the Supreme Court issued rulings affecting government power and free speech, while the Biden-Trump debate performance sparked controversy about the presidential election. By Roger Kimball

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://amgreatness.com/2024/06/30/scotus-rulings-biden-trump-debate-shake-up-political-landscape/

What a week it’s been! We started off with Justice Amy Souter Barrett writing the SCOTUS ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.  At issue was whether it was okay for the federal government (the FBI and related elements of the American Stasi) to pressure social media and data-hoovering companies (Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.) to suppress opinions they didn’t like about things like COVID, the 2020 election, and the Jan 6 jamboree at the Capitol.

Just to be clear about this: it is not okay for the government to do this, but that’s not what Justice Souter Barrett said.  She did not quite come out and say it was okay.  She left that bizarro opinion to her colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who, during the oral argument phase of the case, said to plaintiff’s counsel: “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways.”

Memo to Justice Jackson: “hamstringing the federal government,” i.e., limiting its prerogatives and ability to intrude upon the lives of its citizens, is the very point of the First Amendment.  That’s why we have a First Amendment.  Indeed, it is a large part of why we have a constitution: to protect citizens from the coercive power of the state.

Justice Barrett was not quite so forthright.  She argued that the plaintiffs “lacked standing.” If Louisiana and Missouri lacked standing to defend their citizens in this case, who or what would have standing?  That was part of the burden of Justice Alito’s robust dissent, in which he was joined by the other adults on the Court, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. As the legal commentator Jonathan Turley put it, “The government is engaging in censorship by surrogate… They have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment.”

Justice Barrett was not done making those of us who supported her nomination to the Supreme Court regret our support.  In Fischer v. United States, one of the most important cases before the Court this session, the issue was whether it was okay to use an Enron-era law that was designed to prohibit destroying evidence to go after January 6 defendants (and that ex officio perpetual defendant, Donald Trump).  This was the famous, or infamous, “obstructing an official proceeding” charge that we heard so much about while the FBI was arresting grandmothers and other tourists who were in the Capitol that day, and which official but illegally appointed bag man Jack Smith has so handsomely availed himself of in his vendetta against Trump. The case was decided Friday, 6-3, but Barrett weighed in with a dissent.

It used to be that the FBI and other members of the law enforcement fraternity would discover a crime and then pursue the perpetrators. Now, as the dragnet sparked by the January 6 protest shows, “law enforcement” means identifying people the regime doesn’t like and then combing through the statute book to see what laws might apply, or be twisted to apply, to them. It’s a refreshed, Americanized version of the venerable principle articulated by Stalin’s head of the secret police, Lavrentiy Beria: “Show me the man,” said Beria, “and I will show you the crime.”

Another major case, also decided Friday, overturned the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which in effect handed legislative power to the alphabet soup of federal agencies.  By striking down Chevron, the Court dealt an important blow to “the administrative state,” that parallel government populated by unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats who have increasingly been the ones who ran our lives: promulgated the rules by which we were required to live and imposed the fines and other sanctions should we fail to do so. Article One of the Constitution begins by vesting “All legislative Powers . . . in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  Chevron bypassed that stipulation by stealth, rendering Congress more and more ceremonial as distinct from a legislative body.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

Michelle O breaks cover, and her timing is spot on By Victoria White Berger

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/michelle_o_breaks_cover_and_her_timing_is_spot_on.html

All over the media in the past two days was Michelle Obama’s “exclusive” interview, in which she dished on the Biden family dysfunction.

Such a piece of journalistic slavishness is hardly surprising. Surely the ironies have not escaped public notice: “private frustration”—no, not exactly private.

To any of us who attended the First and Second ladies’ horror shows during Barack’s first and second terms, we saw, repeatedly, strain, and certainly no love lost between Michelle and Jill. Both are ambitious, to put it mildly, vain, and love money. Both serve as expensive props for their spouse. Neither accept rivalry from any quarter.

Michelle’s abrupt garrulousness this week was not a coincidence. It is a clear sign that the faux indifference of Ms. Obama to “be” president of the United States may be about to evaporate. We can anticipate, although most hopefully not, a putative fourth Obama administration, as Michelle and her expensive, fascistic PR network further obliterates any sign of her consistent, overarching love of power and cash, “for the good of the country.” The country, mind you, that she has scorned and degraded (see her White House parties) in the past.

I am a native of the District of Columbia. When Barry bought the Kalorama Obama Mansion (one of three, now, hither and yon, or is it four?) in a D.C. ambassadorial neighborhood, some in town knew he was planning on a continuation of his reign (come hell or high water—well, both came).

It was an historic precedent that an immediately past U.S. President would stay on in the District, even if “for our girls”—uh huh.

Then, immediately following Michelle’s typically narcissistic whine session of this week, we get the debate last night. Biden did not disappoint—he really blew it, by just being what half of the country, at least, has known he is for a very long time.

Michelle has not disappointed, either. The photographers, stylists, fashionistas, speech writers, ghost writers, and make-up artists, and pollsters, are all on alert. Look for more “exclusives”  and “private” dishings from the Obama East (to be West?) Wing-soon.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

How DEI Corrupts America’s Universities The ideology of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is not what it purports to be. Christopher Rufo

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://christopherrufo.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=

The idea of public universities in the United States originally rested on a compact between the citizen and the republic. The agreement was that the citizen would provide funding for the university in order to train young people to advance the public interest and the common good. In recent years, however, this compact has shattered, and considerable efforts will be needed to rebuild it.

The clearest expression of what has gone wrong is DEI. At first glance, a commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” might seem laudable. But DEI employs a propagandistic language to conceal its real intentions. It is, in fact, the opposite of what it appears to be.

We can review the acronym in parts. First, “diversity.” The initial connotation of the word suggests a variety of people, experiences, and knowledge. But in practice, universities use diversity to justify a policy of sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, racial discrimination: a total inversion of the principles of colorblind equality and individual merit.

Second, “inclusion.” In kindergarten, teaching kids to be inclusive means encouraging them to share and be polite to classmates. But in the context of a university, inclusion is used as justification for excluding people and ideas that are seen as a threat to prevailing ideologies and sentiments. 

Finally, “equity.” The immediate association is with the principle of equality. But equity is actually a radically opposed idea. Equality is the principle that every man or woman should be judged as an individual, neither punished nor rewarded based on ancestry. Equity demands the opposite: categorizing individuals into group identities and assigning disparate treatment to members of those groups, seeking to “equalize” what would otherwise be considered unjust outcomes.

What this means in practice is that members of certain groups get favored, others disfavored: in short, inequality justified under the ideology of “equity.”

BOOKS Comments turned off

Samuel Gregg China’s Cash for Power A new book examines the Communist Party’s state-backed investment funds.

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://www.city-journal.org/article/chinas-cash-for-power

Sovereign Funds: How the Communist Party of China Finances Its Global Ambitions, by Zongyuan Zoe Liu (Belknap Press, 288 pp., $39.15)

Sovereign wealth funds (SWF) have long been an anomaly in market economies. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department defined SWFs as “government investment vehicles funded by foreign exchange assets, which manage those assets separately from official reserves.” Such funds blur the traditional distinction between the state, which serves as market regulator and guarantor of rule of law and property rights, and the marketplace, in which private actors freely compete within parameters established by law and morality.

Countries’ reasons for creating such vehicles vary. Norway established its Government Pension Fund Global to invest tax and license revenue generated by its oil sector and grow its national pension funds. Other nations have used SWFs as instruments for pursuing industrial policy at one remove from direct government control.

These funds’ intrinsically political character raises questions about their marketplace operations. As state-owned entities, they will not have the same incentives and priorities as private actors. For example, SWFs are less likely to prioritize profit-maximization, and may not even be required to do so. Some, for instance, primarily function as another macroeconomic tool for governments to try and smooth the business cycle’s ups-and-downs. SWFs are also subject to political pressures, encouraging investment based on the regnant government’s current needs, which may not be the same as pursuing long-term economic growth.

Then there are concerns about these funds being weaponized by their government owners. What happens if a SWF decides, at the behest of its controlling government, to use its stake in a publicly traded corporation in another country to pursue specifically political goals in that nation? And what if the SWF’s owner also happens to be an authoritarian regime that does not consider itself bound by Western norms of government accountability and transparency? And what if that same government uses the SWF to serve geopolitical ends that clash with other states’ national-security interests?

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

The Plot Thickens by Mark Steyn

Posted By on June 30th, 2024

https://www.steynonline.com/14399/the-plot-thickens

EXCERPT:

Was there anyone else on the stage? Not so’s you’d know from the headlines. Biden lost to himself. And considering that the object was to make the debate all about Trump that’s quite an accomplishment.

So what’s going on? Why did whoever’s running the show allow this to happen?

I’ve been of the view, ever since the 2020 primary season, that Biden is the Permanent State’s conscious response to Trump: in 2016, Trump was all candidate and no minders; Biden is all minders and no candidate. In that sense, the dead husk of a moth-eaten sock-puppet is the perfect embodiment of American politics. We can do all the cracks about “Obama’s third term” or “the Manchurian candidate”, but the truth is that, in a supposedly self-governing republic of 350 million people, we have absolutely no idea who’s actually running the show – other than the fact that, out of those 350 million, the only one we can definitively rule out of having anything to do with it is the purported head of the executive branch.

You have to figure that that’s greatly to the advantage of the Deep State, and that’s why they’d like to keep it that way. It’s quite something to teach the people the lesson that representative politics is just a meaningless joke, third-rate dinner-theatre in which all the faux-combat is an obvious sham. In the Soviet Union, the point wasn’t to persuade you to believe the lie but to force you to live with the lie. Reducing the two-year US election cycle to the same state inflicts an even more brutal humiliation on the masses.

So why weren’t they able, after a week-and-a-half of dosage experimentation, to shoot the stiff enough of the juice to pass him off as being back in his State of the Union top-of-the-game mode?

As my former GB News colleague Neil Oliver observed long ago on The Mark Steyn Show, formulating a useful rule of contemporary politics:

This is happening because they want it to happen.