‘Killing Reagan’ More Regurgitated Pop Culture Than Serious Scholarship By David Forsmark

So, this is what we have come to in the Bill O’Reilly KillingIcons series. First, a book that entertainingly hypothesizes an assassination out of thin gruel (Killing Patton) and now a book about a failed assassination attempt (Killing Reagan). Except very little about O’Reilly’s most recent book is even about the assassination attempt on President Reagan—unless you want to count the character assassination by O’Reilly and his (actual) writer, Martin Dugard. It’s little more than the latest attempt by Bill O’Reilly to gain mainstream acceptance.

Not long ago, I wrote that comparing Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump was the biggest insult imaginable to Reagan’s legacy. Not any more. This garbage far surpasses it, in no small part because the big breaking news that O’Reilly claims justifies his rush job on this sloppy, poorly constructed book was already discussed—and mostly discarded—in 1988.

That’s right, Bill, the 1980s called and they want their breaking news back.

The big breaking news (in Bill O’Reilly’s mind) is an internal investigation conducted by then chief of staff Howard Baker into the condition of White House operations in the wake of the Iran-Contra affair. Baker asked his longtime staffers James Cannon and Thomas Griscom to give him an assessment of the situation.

Blasting Middle East Delusions By P. David Hornik

“It is only when the Western chancelleries break out of their delusional bubble and acknowledge the Manichean and irreconcilable nature of the challenge posed by their Islamist adversaries that their policies will stand the slightest chance of success.”

Efraim Karsh, professor emeritus at King’s College London and currently professor of political studies at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, has written a tour de force on the follies of great-power Middle East policies over the past century, down to the disastrous misconceptions and blunders of President Barack Obama.

The Tail Wags the Dog [1] begins with some myth-busting about the Sykes-Picot agreement, now ritually denounced as a British-French imperialist grab of the Middle East from which its current woes originate. Actually, Karsh demonstrates from the historical record, Britain and France sought to construct a unified Arab empire that would replace the Ottoman Empire. Instead they were outmaneuvered by local actors—namely Sharif Hussein of Mecca and his sons, Faisal and Abdullah—into forging what are now Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, of which the latter two (at least) were undoubtedly problematic entities from the start.

Dumbing Down the SATs By Chris Cumeo

At the very heart of our troubles as a country is the degeneration of our educational system.
For many, the SAT is a hurdle long since cleared. For those who are parents, there is still the specter of having to relive the experience vicariously. Those parents, as well as the rest of the population, need to consider yet another instance of forced conformity and a closing of our collective American mind: the format of the new SAT essay. The original SAT did not feature an essay section, the revamped SAT of ten years ago did, and next year there will be yet another version of the test, with an essay section, but one that has a noticeably different format. Traditionally, on virtually every scholastic essay assignment the student is asked to evaluate and respond. As a tutor, I am quite familiar with the rolled eyes and deep sighs at the prospect of writing an essay. However, at its core, the traditional essay format affords each student the opportunity that far too many people on this planet never get: a chance to speak his mind. Whether it is a twenty-minute assignment, or one a kid mulls over several days, the opportunity for self expression is still there. But that opportunity is lost on the new SAT essay. Instead of having the liberty to speak his mind, the student is forced merely to evaluate an essay. The poor student must read an argument, often offensive and deeply flawed, and simply determine how the author made his argument — did he use persuasive language, or appeal to logic or to authority? As an educator, independent thinker, and free-born citizen, I find this change in format to be alarming and wrong.

The Media is Free, and is Everywhere Chained to a Narrative By Steve Apfel

What the media passes off as hard news is an aggravated protest over Palestinian rights and Israeli wrongs

If there ever was a real line between news and opinion, it stopped being real in 1967. That was the year Israel licked belligerent Arab powers and took whole chunks of territory off them. The West marveled, but not for long. Humanity’s implanted fixation with the “Jewish problem” boiled up from an after-Holocaust slumber like a bubbling sea beast. Millennial antipathies were back at full strength. The media packed them into a narrative that conditions voting blocs and electorates down to this day. What the media passes off as hard news is an aggravated protest over Palestinian rights and Israeli wrongs. Anchors and editors slave away at a narrative garbled by animosity. None bother to hide it anymore. The narrative may have convinced audiences, but even more, opinion formers have convinced themselves that juggernaut Jews make life intolerable for underdog Palestinians who only want sovereignty. A brittle hysteria has settled on the media in every free country.A brittle hysteria has settled on the media in free countries, imparting an aura of menace.

To get the narrative across, to direct fury at Israel for being top dog, the media plays any number of games. I explained media games here and more in the book Hadrian’s Echo. Spiking stories, obscuring facts, reinventing the laws of war — these are other tricks of the trade. Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains. The media is free, and is everywhere chained to a narrative that beggars belief. The narrative depends a lot on media-imposed censorship. Fear and bias impart the impetus.

Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary? By Amil Imani and James Hyde

In an administration known for its disdain for accountability and appalling disregard for justice, FBI Director James Comey sets himself apart as a straight shooter and strong adherent of the equal application of the law. To those who know and/or have worked with him, Comey’s character is unimpeachable, his integrity unique, and his pursuit of justice determined, focused, and incorruptible in a capital where such traits are routinely eschewed.

According to Dr. Monica Crowley, quoted below, Comey is closely overseeing his crack cyber-forensic team, which has masterfully managed to do what many claimed couldn’t be done: they accessed the files on Hillary Clinton’s “wiped” email server. If they find ample evidence to indict her, as Crowley intimates below, and the Justice Department decides not to pursue charges, many political pundits foresee Comey resigning, or looking the other way when whatever illegal activity they found starts to leak.

Notable & Quotable: Sen. Tom Cotton Why closing Guantanamo by executive action would be a mistake.

Washington, D.C.- Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) today released the following statement in response to White House and Senate Democrats comments about using unilateral executive action to shut down the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay:

“Any suggestion that the prison at Guantanamo Bay is a terrorist recruiting tool is disingenuous and aimed solely at scoring political points. Terrorists did not attack us on 9/11 and do not attack us today because of a prison. They attack us for who we are and what we stand for. Guantanamo Bay is a safe and humane facility. Moreover, it is an important tool in our counterterrorism strategy as nearly thirty percent of released detainees are confirmed or are suspected of having returned to terrorism. The number of recidivists at Guantanamo is zero. Just last week the Obama Administration released Shaker Aamer, a Guantanamo detainee, to the United Kingdom. I am deeply concerned this dangerous terrorist still poses is still a threat to our safety. We would be safer if he were still in his cell at Guantanamo Bay. I will continue to fight to keep dangerous terrorists like Shaker Aamer from returning to the fight and against any efforts by the Obama Administration to close the terrorist detention facility.”

I Was an Oil Spill Scapegoat I helped to cap the Deepwater Horizon well. The Justice Department then turned my life into a legal nightmare. By Kurt Mix

At 6:30 a.m. on April 24, 2012, federal agents, wearing Kevlar vests and with guns drawn, raided my home in Katy, Texas, with a warrant for my arrest. This was as shocking to me as it would be for any normal, law-abiding citizen.

I’m not a drug dealer, violent criminal or money launderer. I’m an engineer. In 2010 I helped stop the BP oil spill after an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig left a damaged well spilling crude directly into the Gulf of Mexico.

On the morning of the raid I left early for work, so I was not at home when it occurred. My wife was alone and had to deal with the shock of a squad of FBI agents ripping through our home. We’ve seen it a hundred times on “Law and Order.” They raced through our house and badgered and interrogated my wife.

Later that morning, after a frantic call from my wife, I drove to a local police station to surrender. As bad as that day was, I had no idea what was about to happen. I didn’t realize I had become a central focus of the Justice Department’s investigation into the BP oil spill. For the next three and a half years, a Justice task force was dedicated to putting me in jail.

What had I done to merit this? I had worked as hard as I knew how for nearly 90 straight days to help stop the Deepwater Horizon spill. Plugging the well, as fast as possible, was the focus of my life.

Looking back now at the Justice Department’s conduct, I realize that I made one egregious error: I naïvely believed that the task force simply wanted the truth. I was certain that once it had the full record of my actions, everything would be fine, and the trauma my family and I had gone through would end.

From Kristallnacht to the Kindertransport to, Finally, America A group of Berliners said a stain on the street was a Jew’s blood. Even now I can hear their laughter.By John H. Lang

Monday, Nov. 9, marks the anniversary of Kristallnacht in 1938, when Nazi hordes ran wild throughout Berlin, as well as in other German cities. Jewish houses of worship were desecrated and then set afire. Thousands of Jews were rounded up, some beaten to death, others sent to concentration camps. Jewish-owned businesses and homes were looted.

I will never forget seeing the unimaginable horror of the night and the following day 77 years ago. By luck, my parents were not in Berlin. I was at my grandmother’s. Through the window I could see my beautiful synagogue engulfed in flames as desperate screams rose from the street below. Each knock on our apartment door brought terror, followed by incredible relief. By some miracle, two of my uncles made it to my grandmother’s seeking safety from the savagery of this night.

The next morning as I wandered through my neighborhood, I saw shards of plate glass everywhere, as every Jewish-owned shop had been looted and painted with vile Jew-hating slogans. Uniformed Nazis and their sympathizers were having fun as they surveyed their brutality. One group looked at a large stain on the street that was said to be the blood of a Jew. Even now I can hear their laughter.

Prosecuting Climate Dissent Progressives target Exxon for punishment over its research.

Sheldon Whitehouse got his man. The Rhode Island Senator has been lobbying for prosecutions of oil and gas companies over climate change, and New York Attorney General and progressive activist Eric Schneiderman has now obliged by opening a subpoena assault on Exxon Mobil. This marks a dangerous new escalation of the left’s attempt to stamp out all disagreement on global-warming science and policy.

Progressives have been losing the political debate over climate change, failing to pass cap and trade even when Democrats had a supermajority in Congress. So they have turned to the force of the state through President Obama’s executive diktats and now with the threat of prosecution. This assault won’t stop with Exxon. Climate change is the new religion on the left, and progressives are going to treat heretics like Cromwell did Catholics.
***

We mention Mr. Whitehouse because he has been the lead Cromwell in calling for the use of the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, a law created to prosecute the mafia, to bring civil cases against companies that fund climate research of which he disapproves. After we called him out in a recent editorial, Mr. Whitehouse denounced us on the Senate floor and compared everyone who disagrees with him to tobacco companies.

Censorship by Commission and Omission Edward Cline

A Muslim’s freedom of speech is sacrosanct; yours is not.

Censorship by omission can only be committed by a government, and for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. A legitimate reason is withholding information from the public if in the public are enemy agents whose own government would benefit from the knowledge. A nation doesn’t need to be at active war to censor information its government might otherwise release to the public.

An illegitimate reason is to defraud the public, to portray the economy as better than it is, to gloss over government failures that were taxpayer supported, to lie to the public, to lead the public to believe that certain things are true or untrue. Illegitimate censorship by omission can show up in official government reports of the gross national product, reports of global climate change, the actual debt ceiling, and so on.

Every press conference held at the White House since Barack Obama’s accession has been a sometimes-successful, off-times not, exercise in duplicity, fabrications, lies, waffling, and misinformation. It has never mattered who was speaking: Obama, his press secretary, or anyone else at the podium.