Republicans Must Wake Up By Tom Klingenstein

https://tomklingenstein.com/republicans-must-wake-up/

Iregularly give politicians advice. They don’t ask for it, but it is the price they pay for the chance to dislodge me from a few shekels. When a politician comes hat in hand, there is one thing of which you can be quite sure: He will agree with your advice. He will invariably go one step further and claim that he practices it. In ornery moods, I tell them, “Well, you’ve been keeping it a secret from me.”  

Now, I have some very particular advice which I have been urging on visiting politicians for the past 8 years or so. As far as I can tell, none of them have listened to a word of it. Actually, that is not quite true. A few of them (or their staff) remember what I urged upon them at a prior meeting, and do me the honor of repeating it. Of course, remembering advice is a long way from taking it seriously.

The particular advice I have been giving is this: America is under attack from an enemy that wants to destroy the American way of life. This internal enemy—not China, the border, the economy, or anything else—is the danger of our time. Nothing else comes close. I call this enemy the “group quota regime.” The group quota regime currently exercises control of every major institution in America—from government bureaucracies, to the military, business, education, the media (social and mainstream), culture, entertainment, sports, and even religion. The woke radicals who exercise the increasingly totalitarian power of this regime believe that a just society is one where all identity groups have equal outcomes. To achieve these outcomes, group quotas must be imposed. Accordingly, American justice, which is based on merit, and the American way of life must be destroyed.

A Middle East quiz for pundits and protesters Moshe Phillips

https://worldisraelnews.com/a-middle-east-quiz-for-pundits-and-protesters/

The six-month anniversary of the savage Hamas terrorist attack of October 7 came and went, and I was left with the feeling that less and less of the American politicians, TV talking heads, protesters, and so-called journalists, who feel they must comment about Israel, should not be.

Far too many just don’t know the simple historical facts needed to intelligently speak about this war. They refer all the time to what they call Palestine, “the Israeli occupation,” “Israeli apartheid,” and “the Israeli settlements”, which shows they lack a basic understanding of simple facts.

How many of these so-called arbiters of truth do you think would be able to pass a simple quiz? Could they even score a 50%? And if they could not, what drives them to speak out so harshly against Israel?

How many pundits and protesters could score a 50% on the below short quiz?

1. What year was the First Zionist Congress held?

This founding Zionist meeting was held in Switzerland in 1897.

The idea that Zionism originated as a response to German Nazism is false as is the claim that the Zionists wanted a Jewish State outside of the Holy Land and Jerusalem. The anthem selected at the 1897 Congress included the words “The land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

The false claims about Zionism’s origins and goals were created to portray Zionism as having been created to further European colonialism and solve the European problem of antisemitism. Antisemitism was never only a European hatred and was just as strong or stronger in Islamic majority countries.

Defining Jihadism by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20561/defining-jihadism

There is no need, therefore, to abandon the terms jihadism and jihadist out of political correctness or fear of offending Muslims. When appropriately defined, those terms are helpful in grasping the terrorist and insurgent threats and challenges posed by al-Qa’ida, the Islamic State and similar groups — far more so than khawarij, a term that does not have immediately clear meaning for wider audiences, is historically inaccurate, and sounds like a sneaky effort to cloud a very real threat.

Recently, the Daily Wire revealed that an internal newsletter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence featured an article arguing for “changing terminology related to counterterrorism,” because “certain phrases to identify international terrorism… are hurtful to Muslim-Americans.” One of the supposedly “problematic phrases” is the term “jihadist.” An alternative suggestion given in the newsletter to denote jihadists is the word khawarij.[1]

If one wanted to find stereotypical “woke” discourse and political correctness, one would be hard pressed to find a better example than this. Unfortunately, the suggested change in terminology only creates more obstacles to an accurate understanding of contemporary terrorism and insurgent activity associated with the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qa’ida.

For a start, the term khawarij (which can be translated in the broadest sense as “outsiders”) is not immediately understandable to broader audiences or those without knowledge of historical and present-day usage of the term in Arabic-language and Islamic discourse. In this regard, the use of the term recalls the British government’s official adoption of the derisive Arabic acronym “Da’esh'”(standing for “the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham”) to refer to the Islamic State — an acronym that is by now familiar to Arabic-speakers but is meaningless to most English-speakers.

Within Islamic discourse today, the term khawarij is often thrown at those who are deemed too extreme in their beliefs. It may be as an insult, for example, against the Islamic State by al-Qa’ida, or from other Sunni Muslims against the Islamic State and al-Qa’ida. Even the Islamic State uses the term khawarij to describe groups it deems too extreme: most notably, the faction dubbed Jama’at Ahl al-Sunna lil-Da’wa wa al-Jihad, which broke off from the Islamic State in the West Africa region and continues to fight against the Islamic State.

Who Will Help the New ‘Forgotten Man’? by Lawrence Kadish

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20563/who-will-help-the-new-forgotten-man

The Great Depression swept across the nation some 90 years ago, creating a level of despair that nearly crushed America.

Standing mute and dumbfounded on a breadline, tens of thousands became “forgotten men”; stripped of their jobs, their dignity, and their future. Washington was either indifferent or inept in responding to a calamity that threatened the very foundation of the republic.

Some of these forgotten men sought refuge in God, solace in the Bible, and prayed for salvation or, at the very least, a pathway that would lead them to a better life.

Others looked to a vibrant, dynamic president, who would inspire those victims of a national calamity that we are still a nation capable of greatness with the ability to rescue those forgotten men from devastating unemployment.

They found that “savior” in the form of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose confidence in America resonated with his fellow citizens of every background in every community. He lifted up the forgotten men and reminded them that, as Americans, there was a resolute nation to build and they were the people to do it.

Why was gender ideology allowed to run amok for so long? After the Cass Review, we need to recapture our institutions from this cruel, homophobic cult. Tom Slater

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/10/why-was-gender-ideology-allowed-to-run-amok-for-so-long/

Just like that, a trickle becomes a flood. After years of gender-critical voices being dismissed or ignored by mainstream media, they can be dismissed and ignored no longer.

The landmark Cass Review into gender-identity services in England, published today, has laid bare the scandal of the NHS’s treatment of ‘gender confused’ kids. There was never any evidence for subjecting troubled, often gay, often autistic, youngsters to life-altering hormones, drugs and treatments. But clinicians did it anyway, in thrall as they were to gender ideology.

The review is on the front page of the newspapers today. The BBC is platforming trans-sceptical experts – and not just so they can be hissed at live on air. Keir Starmer’s ever-opportunistic Labour Party is saying it agrees with everything in the report.

Of course it’s far too early to be declaring victory, and far too late for many of the victims caught up in this to celebrate, but something monumental happened today. The unsayable has become sayable, on gender at least.

The review, produced by top paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass over four years, is a stunning piece of work: a 400-page triumph of reason over unreason. It doesn’t tell us much we didn’t already know, but it tells us in painstaking detail and with undeniable, data-driven authority.

Biden’s creeping betrayal of Israel Sacrificing an ally to appease the activist class? That’s low, Joe. Brendan O’Neill

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/04/11/bidens-creeping-betrayal-of-israel/

‘Just call for a ceasefire…’ It was the offhand nature of Joe Biden’s haughty instruction to Israel this week, the insouciance of it, that felt most jarring. Just call for a ceasefire, he told ‘the Israelis’, like it was no big deal. Like it’s an easy thing to do to lay down arms against an army of racist terrorists that has already slain a thousand of your citizens and promises to slay thousands more. Like it’s a simple decision to pause a war for your very survival against a medieval movement that was founded with the express intention of wiping you from the face of the Earth. ‘Relax, stop fighting, it will be fine’, Biden was essentially saying, taking his geopolitical idiocy to dizzying new heights.

It was in an interview with Spanish-language network Univision that he issued his breezy decree to Israel. It was recorded last Wednesday but it only aired this week. As you might expect, it’s caused a storm. What I want, said the puffed-up president, is for ‘the Israelis to just call for a ceasefire… for the next six, eight weeks’. That way, more ‘food and medicine’ can get into Gaza, he said. He slammed Benjamin Netanyahu. ‘I think what he’s doing is a mistake. I don’t agree with his approach’, said our armchair general. Imagine the quantity of brass neck it requires for the leader of a nation that has waged bloody war after bloody war these past 20 years to lecture Israel about its fight against an enemy that poses a very real existential threat.

There was the pungent whiff of hypocrisy to Biden’s sermonising. He fumed about the accidental killing of those seven aid workers in an Israeli airstrike. It was ‘outrageous’, he said, how the aid workers’ vehicles were ‘hit by drones and taken out on a highway’. It was indeed awful. But Biden of all people ought to know that grave errors happen in the violent maelstrom of war. His own military forces accidentally killed hundreds of civilians and allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. In one especially dreadful incident, American bombs laid waste to 37 souls at an Afghan wedding party in late 2008. Twenty-three of the dead were kids. ‘Stop killing Afghan civilians’, the then president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, pleaded with the freshly elected Barack Obama. And who was Obama’s vice-president in that era of friendly fire horror? Biden.

DEI Cronyism and Woke Grifters How odd it is that America is wasting billions of dollars hiring DEI czars and electing woke politicians, who so often accuse others of a multitude of sins, largely as a way of enriching themselves. By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/11/dei-cronyism-and-woke-grifters/

When ideology replaces meritocracy or provides immunity from the consequences of illegal behavior, systemic mediocrity follows.

Under toxic National Socialism, Stalinism, and Maoism, millions of cronies and grifters mouthed party lines in hopes that their approved ideology would allow them to advance their careers and excuse their lawbreaking.

The same thing has happened with the woke movement and the now-huge Diversity/Equity/Inclusion conglomerate.

Grifters and opportunists mask their selfish agendas under the cloak of neo-Marxist care for the underprivileged or victimized minorities. Meanwhile, they seek to profit illegally as if they were old-fashioned crony capitalists.

During the disastrous COVID-19 lockdown, California governor Gavin Newsom pontificated about leveraging the quarantine to ensure greater equality: “There is opportunity for reimagining a [more] progressive era as it [relates] to capitalism…We see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern.”

Meanwhile, Newsom did not seem very “progressive” when he was caught in one of California’s most expensive restaurants dining with sidekick lobbyists while violating the very mask and social distancing rules he had mandated for 40 million others.

Newsom also bragged about social equity when he signed a new California law mandating $20 an hour for fast-food workers—while many of his own employees at his various company-controlled eateries made only $16 an hour.

And he allegedly gave a unique exemption from his wage law to one particular bakery/restaurant chain, Panera, whose owner is an old friend and major campaign contributor.

Newsom apparently feels that the more progressively he postures, the less he’ll be called out for his own hypocrisy and self-interested agendas.

James Burnham No More Special Counsels It’s past time to put an end to one of the most destructive regimes in American law enforcement.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/no-more-special-counsels

Few innovations in American law enforcement have done more damage than “independent” prosecutors. Independent and special counsels have upended every presidential administration that has encountered them. They have never yielded benefits commensurate with their costs. They should be abolished.

From my perch at the White House Counsel’s Office, I was a front-row observer of, and direct participant in, Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump. What I saw then confirmed to me the fatal flaws of the special-counsel regime—flaws that, by now, should be obvious to everyone.

The current special-counsel regulation dates to 1999, the year Congress allowed to expire the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which inaugurated the role of independent counsel. That 1978 statute, a post-Nixon ethics reform, created “independent counsels” who, once appointed, wielded the “full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice.” These independent counsels reported to nobody, and they could only be removed for “good cause” and “by the personal action of the Attorney General.”

By the turn of the century, this regime had achieved bipartisan notoriety, spurring multiple Supreme Court cases, prompting perhaps Justice Antonin Scalia’s finest opinion (his solo dissent in Morrison v. Olson), and enabling the endless prosecutorial stalking of executive-branch officials.

Congress’s letting the independent-counsel statute expire should have ended the matter. Yet rather than make a clean break, the Department of Justice made a grave, if understandable, error. It adopted a regulation maintaining independent prosecutors but housing them within the Department of Justice under the supervision of the Attorney General. The department believed it was improving the lapsed statute by continuing to exempt these “special counsels” from the attorney general’s “day-to-day supervision,” while making such prosecutors—unlike independent counsels—ultimately answerable to the attorney general for their investigative and prosecutorial actions.

Experience has proved this system to be no better. For one thing, it does not solve the biggest problem with independent prosecutorial offices—that prosecutors and agents join teams dedicated to pursuing a specific person or group of people. In these supremely political investigations, people who are politically hostile to the investigatory target invariably jump aboard.

The New Defenders of the Faith Authors need to stop relying on victim narratives to sell books—not only because it tokenizes minorities, but also because it makes one dependent on the whims of liberal elites who are quick to adopt new pets e quick to adopt new pets by Sheluyang Peng

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/new-faith-defenders

This past year’s National Book Awards gala presented an ironic, yet at this point increasingly familiar scene: Held in the glittering halls of Cipriani’s on Wall Street, the attendees—dressed in their finest, dining at one of New York’s famed upscale spots—spent the evening showering prizes on a very specific subset of writing: for young people’s literature, a graphic memoir of an awkward Asian American teen coming of age during a class trip in Europe; for translated literature, a novel about an old gay man who reflects on his clandestine teenage romance with his best friend; for poetry, a collection about the history and culture of the Chamoru people native to Guam; for nonfiction, a Howard Zinn-style history of the United States from a Native American perspective; and finally, for fiction, an experimental novel about two queer Puerto Rican men that wax on about the work of a pioneering sexuality researcher. Other finalists for the fiction award included a novel about Black prisoners being forced to fight to the death for the amusement of racist white viewers, a novel about three generations of Native Americans forced to attend boarding schools set up by racist white government officials, and not one, but two novels about racist white Christian missionaries that try to convert BIPOC souls.

The message was clear: In the book business, at least, it literally pays to be a victim.

Of course, the authors of trauma narratives are simply playing their part in a symbiotic dance with the trauma-hungry gatekeepers of elite spaces. Readers of this magazine are no doubt familiar with the “woke meritocracy” of American academia and letters, according to which the only entrance to the upper echelons of American society is gatekept by those who seek to “check their privilege” and feel absolved through the consumption of victim narratives. Every college student who dreams of ascending the ivory tower knows that the people at the top reward those that can claim their rise was prickled with thorns, just as every struggling product of elite overproduction desperately tries to think of how many victim identities they can check off in an ever-shrinking pool of positions in academia and the workplace.

There is, of course, a paradox in the demand for “diverse voices”: Rather than seeking an actual diversity of viewpoints, our DEI commissars instead seek a racially diverse group whose members will hold the same viewpoint. This one off-the-shelf sob story is now the only viable route to elite advancement.

Jeffrey Blehar: Please Harvard, Don’t Throw Conservatives into That Briar Patch

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/please-harvard-dont-throw-conservatives-into-that-briar-patch/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_

Folks, I do not regret to inform you even in the slightest bit that Christopher Rufo is at it again. Or rather, he continues at it. After he and the journalistic team at the Washington Free Beacon combined to light a fire that ended up incinerating former Harvard president Claudine Gay — it was not her repulsive testimony before Congress that toppled her but the revelation that her already threadbare academic career had been stitched together in large part from the plagiarized work of other, better scholars — he has now pressed forward with an investigation and public rhetorical assault on others similarly situated in the woker spheres of academia. (“Alphabet-soup land,” as I’ve taken to calling it.) At the present moment, Rufo claims to have made embarrassing revelations about former Michigan State professor Lisa Cook (currently a Federal Reserve governor), and prior to this he had flagged the plagiaristic misdeeds of a Harvard Extension administrator and an assistant professor of sociology there.

And by gum, Harvard’s young and comically ingenuous students are not taking it lying down. They have noticed that each of these people is a black female — Rufo, loquaciously online as always, has been happy to point it out to them — and have begun to harbor suspicions that Rufo might be, well, you know . . . a racist. And almost certainly a misogynist, but no need to overdetermine things. (The fact that all of these people are pretty much nailed dead-to-rights on the merits is of course immaterial in this analysis, in exactly the same way that traffic cameras in Chicago were — this is not a joke — deemed “racist” by ProPublica and the city council because they kept disproportionately flagging the wrong demographic of driver. “Equity” in action, my friends.)

I therefore salute Harvard Crimson opinion columnist Maya Bodnick for standing up to Rufo’s transparently racist, reactionary agenda. She sounds the alarm in the title of her piece: “A Witch Hunt Is Targeting Black Harvard Faculty.” First they came for Claudine Gay, she says. Then the Free Beacon tossed the school’s chief DEI officer into the frying pan for a quick sizzle.