Displaying posts published in

June 2024

American Media’s Lethal, Self-Inflicted Wounds Roger Franklin

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/media/2024/06/american-medias-lethal-self-inflicted-wounds/

Perhaps it still does, but 40-odd years ago the US Information Agency would take reporters newly arrived from overseas on little junkets to show how America worked. The Wall had yet to fall, the Cold War continued and Washington wished to put the benefits of democracy and free enterprise on display. I went on only one such trip, in early 1980, which is some time ago, so if what I recall of our stop at the Los Angeles Times is fogged by the years, please forgive a memory perhaps a little blurred at the edges.

What I do recall is being herded, our troupe of international freeloaders — black faces, white and asian, the only genders then on offer, plus some colourful headgear and a robe or two — through a vast acreage of newsrooms until finally, having also inspected loading bays and presses, we were assembled before the vacant desk of the editor-in-chief. A tall, athletic man with a beaky countenance arrived, sat down, delivered some pro forma remarks on the First Amendment, Fourth Estate and the vital role his newspaper played in the lives of Los Angelos and, indeed, the nation and world. The chap with the kente cloth cap asked why Africa received so little attention, and there were questions about November’s presidential election, Carter vs Reagan, and how it would be covered. This is the bit that remains crystal sharp.

“Without fear or favour and in pursuit of the facts,” said the LA Times/Mirror group’s supreme editor, Otis Chandler, the fourth generation of the family that had owned and run the LA Times for more than a century. Like Katherine Graham at the Washington Post, his was a hands-on clan. After the rote boilerplate about the sacred duty of the press, the force of Chandler’s conviction in pledging a thorough, unbiased eye on the looming presidential contest was, well, memorable. The details escape me, except that he went on at some length about the dollar investment that would go into the election coverage, a sum I remember as being in the astonishing multi-millions. The LA Times‘ reputation and that of the Chandlers were as one and worth protecting. Indeed, it was also matter of redemption. Before Otis, the LA Times had been a nakedly biased, right-wing denouncer of all things Democrat, especially unions, which made it the target of a 1910 bombing that left almost two dozen dead.

IRAN MOVES INTO SOMALIA : DANIEL GREENFIELD

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20730/iran-moves-into-somalia

After six months of Iran using its Houthi Jihadis to impose a blockade near Yemen while defying Biden to do anything about it, the Islamic global terror state is moving on to a Somali blockade.

Current reports suggest that the Houthis, an Iranian Shiite terror group, is negotiating to provide weapons to Yemen’s Al-Shabaab, a Sunni Jihadist group allied with Al Qaeda, to expand Iran’s control over shipping. While Al-Shabaab has operated using the conventional Al Qaeda playbook of rifles and IEDs, the Houthis can offer upgraded drones and missile technology.

And best of all, the Houthis can claim that the weapons were battle-tested on the US Navy.

When the Houthis began their naval blockade, the Biden administration had the opportunity to shut it down. Instead, a US Navy carrier group has been tied up for months with no results. The AP headlined its recent coverage as “US Navy faces its most intense combat since World War II against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels”. But as Front Page Magazine already reported, the only reason the war keeps dragging on is that Biden has restricted the US Navy to responding to incoming attacks and only the occasional light bombing raids against the sources of the attacks.

The Houthis, whose motto, like that of their Iranian backers, includes, “Death to America”, have been able to claim that they held off the world’s greatest military for half a year, while imposing control over regional shipping and international trade. And now Iran is moving into Somalia.

One of the side-effects of Biden’s refusal to go on the offensive against the Houthis was that the Somali pirates, who had been lying low during the Trump administration, decided to make a comeback. With Western naval operations diverted to the Yemeni blockade, it has fallen to the Indian Navy to protect shipping against the Somali pirates. But if the Yemen-Somali deal goes through, Al-Shabaab may displace the pirate gangs and impose its own naval blockade.

And with hundreds of US troops deployed in Somalia, the Al Qaeda affiliate armed by Iran would also have the opportunity to directly attack Americans with their new firepower. Previous local reports had already described a flow of weapons from Yemen to Somalia and pirates deploying anti-aircraft weapons aboard a hijacked vessel. So the arrangement may already be here.

Australia is turning a blind eye to anti-Israel extremism Protesters are spraying anti-Semitic graffiti, vandalising property and intimidating politicians with impunity. Hugo Timms

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/27/australia-is-turning-a-blind-eye-to-anti-israel-extremism/

In Australia, anti-Israel activists have targeted yet another MP’s office, this time in Melbourne. Like previous acts of ‘pro-Palestinian’ vandalism, last week’s featured sinister red spray paint, the vapid but now omnipresent ‘Zionism is fascism’ tag, smashed windows and attempted arson.

Something else distinguished this particular attack, however. The office belonged to the Jewish Labor MP Josh Burns. He has been one of the few members of his party to publicly support and visit Israel in the wake of the 7 October pogrom.

Disturbingly, the vandals – police said there were six – appear to have spray-painted horns on top of an image of Burns’s face, while rendering his eyes as bright red orbs. So many lines have been crossed since 7 October that it is almost impossible to say where the bounds of civility now sit. But depicting a Jewish MP as the devil seems an ominous new low.

Before the attack on Burns’s office, anti-Israel activists also targeted the constituency offices of several other Labor politicians, including MP Peter Khalil, government-services minister Bill Shorten, attorney general Mark Dreyfus and defence minister Richard Marles. There was also an attack on the office of Liberal James Paterson, among others.

Incredibly, the western Sydney constituency office of prime minister Anthony Albanese has been closed since January due to repeated attacks. It’s even been defaced by the inverted red triangle – a Hamas propaganda symbol originally used to mark Israeli soldiers and tanks for attack.

The police response to what has now amounted to tens of thousands of dollars of damage has bordered on indifference. No charges have been issued so far. During the Covid lockdowns, Victoria Police arrested a pregnant woman in her own home for creating an anti-lockdown Facebook group, and spent significant state resources prosecuting people for exercising and shopping. Yet they look the other way when Israelophobes threaten our elected representatives.

Amazing New Feats in Shameless Hackery Noah Rothman

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/amazing-new-feats-in-shameless-hackery/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=third

We’ve reached the point in the electoral calendar when the “experts” join forces to provide Joe Biden with a dubious talking point timed for maximum political effect.

Last time around, the “experts” were some of the nation’s most distinguished intelligence officials who assured the voting public that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a fabrication cooked up as part of an unusually sophisticated Russian disinformation operation. Today, the “experts” are economists — indeed, Nobel Prize winners — all of whom insist that Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies risk exacerbating inflation. That wouldn’t be such a galling assertion if this brain trust hadn’t also assured Americans that Joe Biden’s economic-policy preferences are entirely unimpeachable.

An open letter signed by 16 accomplished economists begins with the authors confessing how “deeply concerned” they are by Trump’s economic prescriptions and the “vagaries of his actions” on the world stage. In particular, the letter’s signatories expressed their fear that Trump’s “irresponsible budgets” will “reignite” inflation.

It’s unclear what “irresponsible budgets” the authors are describing. If they’re referring to the statements of principle that presidents send to Congress under the guise that they are budgetary proposals, these economic mavens need not worry so much. Presidential budgets are political documents, not economic blueprints, and Congress tends to regard them as such.

If, however, these economists were referring implicitly to Trump’s reliance on tariffs as the answer to any and every economic challenge, these economists would be on surer footing. Some forecasters have gamed out the effect of Trump’s sweeping tariff proposals, and they anticipate that the higher cost of imports and the prospect of Chinese retaliation would boost consumer prices.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Biden Administration in Landmark Social-Media Censorship Case By James Lynch

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-biden-administration-in-landmark-social-media-censorship-case/?

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Biden administration in a landmark case dealing with government involvement in social-media censorship, finding that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue.

Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion asserting that two states and five social-media users do not have standing to contest the level of coordination between government agencies, nonprofits, and tech platforms in restricting content on social media.

“We begin—and end—with standing. At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute,” the majority opinion reads.

The landmark Murthy v. Missouri content-moderation case came about from a lawsuit by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration over federal agencies working with social-media platforms and third-party nonprofits to censor conservatives online.

Last July, a district court ruled that federal agencies could not communicate with social-media companies or nonprofits with the purpose of coercing them into restricting speech. The Fifth Circuit partially upheld the injunction last fall and found multiple federal agencies violated the First Amendment.

“This evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence,” Barrett said of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

Is Equality of Opportunity Even Realistic in a Free Society? It’s time to rethink the concept. by Jason D. Hill

https://www.frontpagemag.com/is-equality-of-opportunity-even-realistic-in-a-free-society/

There is a popular rejoinder in our society to the ideal of equity: equal results from unequal causes, and equal rewards for unequal performance.

A popular canard that has become constitutive of equality dialogue is that the United States was built not on equality of outcomes or even economic equality. It is devoted to equality of opportunity. But we should begin to re-think the concept of equality of opportunity. I would submit that even equality of opportunity is a politically untenable goal in a free society.

Equality of opportunity sounds like a beautiful thing to most people and, in an ideal utopia in which all persons were blessed with equal abilities and exercised their choices and judgments in a consistently rational and productive manner, one could imagine such an ideal being approximated. But what is an opportunity?

An opportunity is a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something and achieve a goal. When I say that I have an opportunity to do something, I am describing a state of affairs in which the execution of action directed towards a phenomenon (some tangible thing in the world) will result in the realization of a goal I have set for myself.

When people speak of equality of opportunity they are speaking of those tangible things (a job, an education, a meeting with someone important who can advance their cause etc.—the material conditions that are required for the realization of a goal) that must avail themselves to each person equally. To put it another way, it is believed that a society or state must ensure that the circumstances and the conditions conducive to achieving goals are equally available to all persons. And for this project to be successful, we have to be committed to the idea that equality of opportunity is predicated on equalizing all chances of success.

Jewish Plot To Participate In An Election And Oust Pro-Hamas Marxist Gasbag Succeeds By: David Harsanyi

https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/26/jewish-plot-to-participate-in-an-election-and-oust-pro-hamas-marxist-gasbag-succeeds/

Jamaal Bowman lost his congressional primary race yesterday by 17 points, and all his allies in D.C. and the media decided to blame the Jews.

Now, it’s true that a large contingent of Jews who reside in Westchester County got together and, using their free will, decided to vote against a rape-denying Hamas apologist. But let’s not underplay the fact that Bowman was also a truther, a racist, and a fire-alarm-pulling clown.

Bowman, it seems, didn’t even know where his district was located. “We are gonna show f—king AIPAC the power of the motherf—ing South Bronx,” the former middle-school principal yelled to a small crowd at one of the most cringe-worthy political rallies I can ever remember watching. Red-diaper baby Bernie Sanders, one of the most popular politicians in the Democratic party, was on hand to tell the small crowd that the Democratic primary was “one of the most important” in American history.

Bowman’s district isn’t in the South Bronx, by the way. His rally was five miles outside his district.

In any event, most leftists blamed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for Bowman’s fortunes. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who put on some kind of wild pogo dance at the Bowman rally, has accused AIPAC of being “a right-wing insurrectionist-supporting, pro-Netanyahu lobbying organization.” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes claimed that Bowman’s race was in a “dead heat” without AIPAC’s involvement, which is a ludicrous conjecture considering Bowman was down 17 points before AIPAC ever ran an ad.

Reparations: Taking money from people who never owned slaves and giving it to people who never were slaves Robert Zimmerman

https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/reparations-taking-money-from-people-who-never-owned-slaves-and-giving-it-to-people-who-never-were-slaves/

The effort to justify the new fad of forcing all Americans today to pay blacks reparations for the evil of slavery that was eliminated a century and a half ago at the cost of more than 600K lives continues. A recent published study by two “Didn’t Earn It” (DEI) academic elites at the Harvard Kennedy School attempts to justify the distribution of reparations now by claiming that the U.S. has a long history of paying out money to harmed individuals. From the paper’s abstract:

[T]he United States has a long-standing social norm that if an individual or community has suffered a harm, it is considered right for the federal government to provide some measure of what we term “reparatory compensation.” In discussing this norm and its implications for Black American reparations, we first describe the scale, categories, and interlocking and compounding effects of discriminatory harms by introducing a taxonomy of illustrative racial harms from slavery to the present. We then reveal how the social norm, precedent, and federal programs operate to provide victims with reparatory compensation, reviewing federal programs that offer compensation, such as environmental disasters, market failures, and vaccine injuries. We conclude that the government already has the norm, precedent, expertise, and resources to provide reparations to Black Americans. [emphasis mine]

The highlighted word is key to understanding the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of these incompetent Harvard academics. In their paper they use numerous examples of cases where the government has provided compensation to actual individuals — such as veterans, individuals harmed by radiation from nuclear tests, and those who lost their pensions due to bankruptcy or mismanagement of their pension funds — and then claim this proves paying reparations to the community of blacks, based merely on their race and the past existence of slavery, is within traditional American jurisprudence.

13 Nobel Economists Promised Biden Would Cut Inflation, Now They’re Saying Trump Will Ignite It  The Committee to Unleash Prosperity

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/06/27/nobel-economists-who-got-bidenflation-100-wrong-now-predict-trump-will-ignite-inflation/

Reprinted, with permission, from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity‘s daily must-read Hotline email.

We have our hand on the Bible swearing we are not making this story up.

A gang of 16 Nobel prize-winning economists signed a letter yesterday endorsing Joe Biden for president because: “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite inflation with his fiscally irresponsible budgets.”

But then our colleague, Scott Bessent, noticed something strange and ironic about the signatories: 13 of these economists signed a highly-publicized open letter three years ago assuring Americans that Biden’s “Build Back Better” spending spree would “ease longer-term inflationary pressures.”

Then — whoops! — 18 months later inflation soared to 9.1% under Biden – the worst U.S. inflation in almost 40 years! This would be the medical equivalent of amputating the wrong leg. 

Here’s the overlapping list of these economists who were spectacularly wrong in 2021, but whom we are supposed to believe are right this time around.

Jews Must Show Up Again in LA — This Time in Court The Sunday pogrom on the Jews of Pico happened because the city of LA failed to act to prevent it. Lori Lowenthal Marcus

https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/372585/jews-must-show-up-again-in-la-this-time-in-court/

On Sunday a crowd of violence-craving Jew haters ambushed and blocked the entrance to a synagogue in Los Angeles, enraged that property in Israel was being offered for sale to interested Jews.  The failure of the LA Police to prevent Sunday’s violent attacks on Jews prompts the obvious question:  Can’t you sue somebody to make this stop?  The answer is yes, but with one important and entirely attainable yet too often elusive condition:  You need to have people brave enough to stand up to the haters and use their name in court.

Police exist to protect the community from crime, especially violent crime.  But you can’t just go to court and complain that the police didn’t show up when they should have; courts don’t want to be in the business of governing police departments.

But what courts can certainly do is require equality:  Jews are entitled to the same kind and degree of protection for their events that all other groups get.   The LA police certainly know how to show up, and they do show up to ensure safety when the people being protected aren’t Jews, especially the “wrong” kind of Jews—you know, traditional Jews who live the commitment to Zion that’s at the center of our Torah, our beliefs, customs, and rituals. It certainly doesn’t look like there was equality in this case.

What happened outside Congregation Adas Torah happened because the LA police treated this event differently than they treat similar events when violence is reasonably expected.  Here are just a few of the things they did, and didn’t do, when they do the opposite for everyone else:

1.   They didn’t put up barriers to separate ideological opponents, when they routinely use that tool to protect people from demonstrators who are expected to be menacing or violent.

2.   They didn’t ensure that the Jews trying to get into their shul could do so safely. Instead they left the pro-Hamas crowd right on the sidewalk leading to the shul’s front door.