RUTHFULLY YOURS

The history of the visionary liberal-left, as presented by Doug Rossinow, is an engrossing tour-de-force in terms of bringing to life the oft-contentious and divisive glittering disco ball of American collectivism.

Visions of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America, by Doug Rossinow, contains in its title the term “traditional.” The book is colored throughout by a yearning for years and causes past, when “radicals” and leftists wore suit jackets and had haircuts instead of sporting Che Guevara T-shirts and tattered fashion designer jeans, and the distaff elements looked more like clean-cut pom-pom girls instead of slovenly, foul-mouthed sluts, and when the “liberals’ and “radicals” cooperated to advance their collectivist causes in this country.

It’s almost as though Rossinow were hankering for the days of good grooming and presentable attire in the march to a Progressive utopia.

In fact, the cover of Vision features two young figures from a 1962 May Day poster. One can project the man and woman in their old age today as arch-conservatives worried about their IRA’s, 401k’s, and retirement portfolios. That is, worried about what’s left after the socialists/progressives/social justice warriors have dipped their beaks into them.

May 12, 1948: President Truman meets in the Oval Office with Secretary of State George Marshall, Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett, Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and several others to discuss the Palestine situation. Clifford argues in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state in accordance with the United Nations resolution of November 29, 1947. Marshall opposes Clifford’s arguments, and contends they are based on domestic political considerations. He says that if Truman follows Clifford’s advice and recognizes the Jewish state, then he (Marshall) would vote against Truman in the election. Truman does not clearly state his views in the meeting.

May 12, 13, and 14, 1948: Counsel to the President Clark Clifford and Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett discuss the different views held in the White House and the State Department regarding whether the United States should recognize the Jewish state. Lovett reports to Clifford on May 14 that Marshall will neither support nor oppose Truman’s plan to recognize the Jewish state, that he will stay out of the entire matter.

May 13, 1948: Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, writes to President Truman: “I deeply hope that the United States, which under your leadership has done so much to find a just solution [to the Palestine situation], will promptly recognize the Provisional Government of the new Jewish state. The world, I think, would regard it as especially appropriate that the greatest living democracy should be the first to welcome the newest into the family of nations.”

May 14, 1948: late morning eastern standard time (late afternoon in Palestine): David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, reads a “Declaration of Independence,” which proclaims the existence of a Jewish state called Israel beginning on May 15, 1948, at 12:00 midnight Palestine time (6:00 p.m., May 14, 1948,eastern standard time).

May 14, 1948, 6 p.m. eastern standard time (12:00 midnight in Palestine): The British mandate for Palestine expires, and the state of Israel comes into being.

May 14, 1948, 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: The United States recognizes Israel on a de facto basis. The White House issues the following statement: “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the State of Israel.” To see a color copy of this document click here.

May 14, 1948, shortly after 6:11 p.m. eastern standard time: United States representative to the United Nations Warren Austin leaves his office at the United Nations and goes home. Secretary of State Marshall sends a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning.

May 15, 1948: On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attack Israel.

On May 6, 2015 Fox News reported, “Purported ISIS warning claims terror cells in place in 15 states.” [2]

Here is how that ominous report began:

A grim online warning from a self-described American jihadist said Sunday’s terror attack in Texas was the work of ISIS and that the terrorist group has scores of “trained soldiers” positioned in 15 states, awaiting orders to carry out more operations.

The warning, which was posted on a file-sharing site, could not be verified, but was signed by Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki. That name matches the moniker of a shadowy American known to have joined a terrorist group in Pakistan several years ago and who has appeared in propaganda videos before. The chilling threat named five of the states where it is claimed that ISIS has terror cells in place.

News coverage about this threat included statements by the administration that it was prepared to pay millions of dollars to anyone who could provide information to enable them to locate leaders of terror organizations. Monetary payments for information is a good strategy. However, although it is not generally known, immigration benefits or visas for aliens illegally present in the United States and their families can provide a far greater incentive to get aliens to provide vital information. I base this assessment on my personal experience.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa’s The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty [2] is less of a study of the life of the Communist killer than a look at how his totalitarian legacy poisons Latin America today. Totalitarianism in Latin America is the real theme of The Che Guevara Myth. The myth is less about Che the individual than the idea that violent terror can bring reform rather than further cycles of brutal oppression.

As Alvaro Vargas Llosa points out, “Che Guevara had a lot more in common with the men and systems he fought than would seem conceivable.” The same was true of Fidel Castro, the son of a plantation owner who received a wedding gift from Batista or Vladimir Lenin, the son of a nobleman.

At least four board members of the highly efficient cash-for-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation have either been charged with or convicted of serious crimes, including bribery and fraud, according to an eagerly awaited blockbuster of a book.

The book is Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer. Although it only became available for sale to the public on May 5, on Sunday it was already the 15th best-selling book on Amazon.com. The New York Times calls the meticulously documented opus “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy,” and reports that it “asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.”

A newly hired Boston University professor has come under fire for several anti-white comments she made on Twitter, but the school says she is simply practicing free speech.

Incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies, Saida Grundy tweeted a slew of tweets over several months blasting white males which have drawn criticism on social media, Fox News reported Saturday.

“White masculinity isn’t a problem for America’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges,” Ms. Grundy tweeted in March.

In another tweet from January, she wrote, “Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses. And every year I find it nearly impossible.”

In another tweet she called white males a “problem population,” Fox reported.

Last year McCartney apologized for saying “All lives matter” instead of “Black lives matter”….in response to a vigil against police brutality……rsk
Via the Boston Globe:

Motherhood is a cultural invention. It reflects a belief adopted by society that is passed down from one generation to the next. In US culture, we hold to the idea that young children are better off when cared for exclusively by their mothers. Mothers are bombarded by this message in the media, especially in programming directed to them. Only after five seasons does Claire Dunphy, the iconic mother of “Modern Family,” return to the workplace.

I could respond with single mother/career mother roles from media to counter Ms. McCartney’s critical “Modern Family” example, but I’m writing a blog post, not a book.

Part of this is rooted in the leftist pitch to get your kids into daycare as early as possible for the beginning of the indoctrination that will make them believe things like “motherhood is a cultural invention” without questioning.

North Korea’s test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile announced Saturday was not entirely a surprise. The rogue state makes its own version of the 1960s-era Soviet SS-N-6 and uses it as an upper stage in its multistage rockets. Last year a South Korean official confirmed that the North was modifying subs to carry the missile.

In theory this means Pyongyang could mount a surprise nuclear attack, though the missile would require more testing to reliably deliver a warhead. The North could be lying or released doctored photographs, in this case of dictator Kim Jong Un standing aboard a ship and watching as a missile takes flight from beneath the sea.

They reject his attempts to reassure them over the Iran nuclear deal.

The promise of a successful nuclear deal with Iran is that it will stop nuclear proliferation, moderate Tehran’s behavior, make the Middle East a safer place, and perhaps allow the U.S. to play a less active role in a troublesome region. Try telling that to the Arab leaders who were supposed to visit the White House and Camp David this week, but are now finding a reason not to show up.

President Obama announced the visit when he unveiled the Iran “framework” last month. The goal is to reassure the king of Saudi Arabia—along with the emirs and princes of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates—that the U.S. will continue to support them despite the nuclear deal with Iran. The President has also suggested he’ll have a “tough conversation” about their internal politics, though how another Obama lecture on good governance will ease concerns about U.S. reliability is anyone’s guess.

A society that rejects the notion of a heckler’s veto cannot accept the idea of a murderer’s veto.

Since when did the phrase “she was asking for it” gain respectability in the encyclopedia of American political correctness?

In 2011 Lara Logan was sexually assaulted in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, after which several bloggers chimed in that the CBS correspondent somehow had it coming to her because she’s blonde and pretty and the demonstrators were frenzied and male. Respectable opinion, conservative and liberal alike, rose up as one to denounce the appalling suggestion.

Fast forward to the May 3 terrorist attack on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, in which two jihadists attempted to shoot their way into a Muhammad cartoon contest organized by Pamela Geller and her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Since the attack, Ms. Geller has been denounced from Fox News to Comedy Central as a provocation artist who needlessly and knowingly put people’s lives in danger.

“This is problematic to me, because I wonder whether this group that held this event down there to basically disparage and make fun of the prophet Muhammad doesn’t in some way cause these events,” commented Chris Matthews. “Well, not the word ‘causing’—how about provoking, how about taunting, how about daring?”