Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Donald Trump to Skip White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner Announcement comes at a moment of tense relations between president and news media By Peter Nicholas

WASHINGTON—Having denounced several leading news organizations​ as the “enemy of the people,” President Donald Trump on Saturday said he won’t mingle with any members of the press at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Mr. Trump tweeted that he won’t attend the April 29 event, though he didn’t give a reason. “Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!” he wrote. Presidents typically speak at the dinner, a major event on the Washington social calendar.

The last president not to appear at the event was Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 was recovering from injuries he received from an assassination attempt. Mr. Reagan addressed the dinner by phone, though.
“If I could give you just one little bit of advice: When somebody tells you to get in a car quick, do it,” Mr. Reagan said, referring to John Hinckley Jr.’s attempt to kill him outside the Washington Hilton, the same venue where the press dinner is held.

Mr. Trump seemed to leave open the possibility of participating in future dinners: his tweet notes that he won’t be attending “this year.”

The correspondents’ dinner is an annual Washington ritual that has evolved over the years into an A-list social event complete with pre-parties and after-parties. Hollywood celebrities mix with reporters, members of Congress, White House officials, lobbyists and cabinet secretaries in an evening dubbed the “nerd prom.” Gawkers line up at the Washington Hilton to take pictures of arriving guests.

Presidents typically deliver a speech, with guests in formal wear lifting a glass to the commander-in-chief.

While the dinner has drawn complaints about apparent coziness between government officials and the press, it also serves as a forum for awarding scholarships and honoring exceptional journalism. CONTINUE AT SITE

God help us if Chelsea Clinton runs for office By Maureen Callahan

Last Sunday Chelsea Clinton, usually such a reticent public figure, took to Times Square with her 2-year-old daughter, Charlotte, to march in the Muslim solidarity rally.

“Thank you to all who organized #IAmAMuslimToo today — Charlotte’s 1st protest rally. #NoBanNoWallNoRaids,” she tweeted.

Chelsea’s also promoting her new, co-authored book “Governing Global Health,” with a soft-focus Q&A in the Sunday New York Times and an eight-city tour in April. It’s a more high-profile push than the one for her last, a 2015 YA book called “It’s Your World,” which focused on low-key school visits — exercising, perhaps, an abundance of caution during her mother’s presidential campaign.

This was, for decades, the Clinton strategy: Say as little as possible, avoid unforced errors. While stumping for her mother in 2008, Chelsea took it to new levels, refusing to answer this question: “Do you think your dad would be a good ‘first man’ in the White House?”

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately,” Chelsea said. “Even though I think you’re cute.”

The interrogator? A 9-year-old “kid reporter” from Scholastic News.

If Chelsea’s new online persona seems surprising — she’s come alive on Twitter, prolific and politicized — party observers say it shouldn’t be. In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s devastating electoral loss, it seems Chelsea Clinton, historically boring and opinion-free, is mulling a run for high office.

Though her spokesperson denies it, signs point elsewhere.

“The super-aggressive tweets are a way to create a constituency around her,” says veteran political consultant Hank Sheinkopf. “Particularly in New York, where people don’t like Donald Trump.”

‘It bothers the s—t out of me that everyone thinks she’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.’

Last November, Page Six reported that Chelsea was being groomed for a Congressional run. The Clintons “will not give up,” a source said. “Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand.”

That’s the problem. Putting aside America’s exhaustion with dynastic politics, Chelsea herself, as a potential candidate, comes loaded with Clintonian baggage: the greed, the entitlement, and her mother’s greatest flaw — an inability to connect with common people.

Planned Back-Channel Talks Between U.S., North Korea Scuttled State Department withdraws visa approvals for Pyongyang’s top envoy on American relations By Jonathan Cheng

SEOUL—Plans for back-channel talks in New York between government representatives from North Korea and former U.S. officials were scuttled Friday after the State Department withdrew visa approvals for Pyongyang’s top envoy on U.S. relations, according to people familiar with the matter.

The talks, which were scheduled to take place on the first two days of March at a hotel near the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan, where North Korea has a mission, were contingent on the granting of a visa for Choe Son Hui, the director-general of the American affairs bureau in the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The plans for the unofficial meeting, which were reported earlier by the Washington Post, came together after several approaches from the North Korean side following Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election, according to one of these people.

It isn’t clear what led the U.S. to deny Ms. Choe the visa. But North Korea’s recent provocations, including the test-firing of a new missile during Mr. Trump’s meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe earlier this month and the suspected assassination in broad daylight of the half brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, may have played a role in souring sentiment on the U.S. side.A State Department spokesman declined to comment, saying it doesn’t discuss the details of individual visa cases.

The meeting, which would have been the first between the two sides on U.S. soil in nearly six years, was to have included two former U.S. officials who planned to push for the release of two Americans imprisoned in Pyongyang.

Ms. Choe has been a frequent interlocutor with her U.S. counterparts in the past, but was less active during the latter half of the Obama administration as the White House turned its focus to striking deals on Iran and Cuba. CONTINUE AT SITE

Democrats Elect Tom Perez as Party Chairman Former Labor secretary, backed by party establishment, defeated Keith Ellison from the party’s populist wing By Reid J. Epstein and Janet Hook

ATLANTA—Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, giving the party an establishment leader at a moment when its grass-roots wing is insurgent.

Mr. Perez defeated Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison and four other candidates in a race that had few ideological divisions yet illuminated the same rifts in the party that drove the acrimonious 2016 presidential primary between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Perez’s victory capped a drama-filled afternoon. The former Labor secretary fell one vote short of a majority on the first vote for chairman, with Mr. Ellison 13 votes behind. The four second-tier candidates then dropped out of the race. On the second ballot, Mr. Perez won 235 of 435 votes cast.
As Donna Brazile, the outgoing party chairwoman, announced the final results, a group of green-clad Ellison supporters in the meeting hall drowned her out with chants of “not big money, party for the people.”

Mr. Perez played down divisions within the party, proclaiming his “love for the robust discussions that occur in the Democratic Party.” He added: “We need every house call, we need to listen to people, we need to get back to basics and we need to move forward.”

To help heal the division, Mr. Perez in declaring victory immediately appointed Mr. Ellison as the party’s vice chairman. Mr. Ellison practically begged his supporters to remain in the party and back Mr. Perez.

“If you came here supporting me, wearing a green T-shirt,” he said, “I’m asking you to give everything you’ve got to support Chairman Perez.”

President Donald Trump took a shot at Mr. Perez in a tweet about the Democratic vote. “Congratulations to Thomas Perez, who has just been named Chairman of the DNC. I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!”

Mr. Perez tweeted in return: “Call me Tom. And don’t get too happy. @keithellison and I, and Democrats united across the country, will be your worst nightmare.”

Vaccines and Terrorism By Eileen F. Toplansky

What better way to conquer your enemy than through the use of vaccine terrorism? Apparently the country of Denmark did not consider the ramifications of the aforementioned question because it “recently sold its state-owned vaccine manufacturing facility to a conglomerate owned by the Aljomaih Group, a Saudi family dynasty.” This Group is led by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Hamad Aljomaih who is also the largest single stockholder and chairman of Arcapita Bank, which, as an Islamic bank is comprised of Islamic scholars, who make certain that the bank’s activities will comply with sharia or Islamic law.

Since those who sit on the bank’s Sharia Board promote aggressive jihad, would it be asking too much why a Western country would leave vaccine manufacturing to an avowed enemy that publicly states that the West must be destroyed?

Some of the men who sit on the Sharia Board include Taqi Usmani who has said that

“[a]grressive Jihad is lawful even today . . . Its justification cannot be veiled.” Yussuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, used to sit on Arcapita’s sharia board. His life’s work is to conquer Europe and America and establish a global caliphate. In “an October 2010 interview with Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi was asked whether Muslims should try to acquire atomic weapons ‘to terrorize their enemies.’ He replied that such an objective was permissible, saying he was ‘happy’ that Pakistan already possessed such a weapon. According to Qaradawi, the procurement of such agents of mass destruction was in compliance with Koranic verses urging Muslims ‘to terrorize thereby the enemy of God and your enemy.'”

The means for establishing a global caliphate include incremental change in any infidel’s land. First aspects of sharia law are introduced; then the loss of free speech under the guise of blasphemy laws is demanded; there is also an increase in antisemitic acts; furthermore, the status of women is denigrated, with a concomitant acceptance of polygamy. Even a cursory look at Europe shows that the jihadists’ success is astonishing as one after another European country accepts its dhimmi status under the guise of multicultural tolerance but, of course, springing from an abject fear of what the jihadists will do if they disobey.

Why Israel Should Keep Building the Settlements By Steve Postal

An oft-repeated sentiment in the international community, college campuses, and both Democratic and Republican administrations is that Israeli settlements built following the 1967 Six-Day War are inhibiting peace in the Middle East. This sentiment, however, is wrong.

Settlements have never stood in the way of peace. In fact, Israel withdrew from territory and uprooted its own people, receiving mostly war in exchange. The settlements are a red herring; those opposed to them simply do not understand that Arab violence towards Jews predates, and runs much deeper than, the settlements. Israel has every right to build settlements and they are of vital importance to the survival of the country.

The Jews Are Indigenous to Judea and Samaria

First, the very idea that Jews should not build in Judea and Samaria (known to many as the West Bank) runs counter to the history of the last three millennia. As the indigenous people, Jews had sovereignty and pseudo-sovereignty in these lands from 1010 BCE to 617 CE (a mere twenty years before the Arab occupation of Jerusalem in 637 CE). After the Jews lost political power in Judea and Samaria, they continued to reside there until the modern period, with interludes when occupying powers forbade them from living in places like Hebron and Jerusalem. In fact, during Israel’s War of Independence (1947-1949), approximately 10,000 Jews were kicked out of or killed in Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

The Settlements Don’t Prohibit a Peace Deal

The settlements in Judea and Samaria are not prohibiting a peace deal. The Arabs were offered and rejected sovereignty in Judea and Samaria before the settlements (Peel Commission (1937) and U.N. Partition Plan (1947)), when there were very few settlements (the Khartoum Resolution (1967) and the Allon Plan (1967-1968)), and when there were many settlements (Camp David (2000), Taba (2001), and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer to President Mahmoud Abbas (2008)). Regardless of the presence, absence, and number of settlements, the Arabs either rejected or left unanswered peace offers in all of these instances.

Israeli Withdrawals Have Brought War, Not Peace

An Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would likely not bring peace, because previous withdrawals have brought war. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, only to see Hizb’allah instigate war in 2006, as well as massively arm itself. Israel’s withdrawal from parts of Gaza and Judea and Samaria during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s was met with the Second Intifada (2000-2005). In exchange for Israel’s full civilian and military withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas gave Israel at least three wars. Since 2005, Hamas massively armed itself, and other terrorist groups have set up shop in Gaza as well. Lastly, while the benefits of Israel’s peace with Egypt should not be understated, there are now jihadi groups in Sinai targeting Israel, despite Israel completely withdrawing its civilian population from there in the 1980s.

The Main Reason for the Lack of Peace is Arab Incitement and Violence

Arab incitement and violence against Israel, Zionism, and Jews long predates 1967 and the settlements and is the primary reason why peace is elusive. Multiple pogroms against Jews in the Arab world go at least as far back as the Damascus Affair of 1840. By the eve of the Six-Day War in 1967, most of the exodus of the 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands from 1948 through 1970 was complete, largely as a response to Arab violence and state persecution.

Violence directed towards Jews in the former British Mandate and later Israel also pre-date 1967 and the settlements. These include the Nebi Musa Riots (1920), the Jaffa Riots (1921), the Western Wall Riot and Hebron Massacre (1929), and the Arab Revolt (1936-1939) including the Tiberias Massacre (1938). Arab attacks from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt against Israel continued following Israel’s War of Independence (1947-1949), especially from 1952-1967.

How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower By Janet Levy

How did a country smaller than El Salvador with a population of eight million and few natural resources become a military superpower within a few decades?

In The Weapon Wizards: How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower (St. Martin’s Press, 2017), authors Yaakov Katz and Amir Bohbot explain this remarkable phenomenon. Calling on their experience as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) veterans and seasoned national security analysts, they present an intriguing and engrossing account of Israel’s defensecapabilities development. From a country lacking bullets and aircraft, Israel transformed itself into one of the most effective militaries in the world and the sixth-largest arms exporter globally. Today, Western powers, including the U.S., France, the UK, Russia and China, all come to Israel to learn and establish joint ventures.

The Jewish State has several characteristics and realities that have contributed to its military prowess and technological leadership, the authors explain. From inception on, Israel has been surrounded by enemies intent on its destruction. The country was built by Jewish refugees forced from Arab countries that their families had inhabited since before the birth of Christ, and by Holocaust survivors, many smuggled past the British into the Jewish homeland. Defense of the ancient homeland was, from the beginning, a survival mission with little room for error and miscalculation. Creativity sprang from the adversity of a relentless enemy close at hand.

Constantly on the front lines of conflict, Israel was forced to break new ground and pursue unproven technologies that other countries may not have considered. The authors say this explains why Israel, among the world’s nations, invests the highest percentage of gross domestic product on research and development: 4.5% with 30% of the total for military projects. Additionally, Israel’s entrepreneurial spirit and ability to innovate is demonstrated by the fact that the tiny country has the third-largest number of companies, behind the U.S. and China, listed on the NASDAQ exchange.

Further, Katz and Bohot explain, going it alone has been a necessity for Israel. Added to problematic regional politics with hostile, oil-rich Arab neighbors is the inability to consistently depend on support from reluctant allies dependent on Gulf oil. The fledgling state responded with inventiveness and innovation to develop its weapons and defense capabilities in this hostile environment.

Israel’s economic surge in defiance of adversity Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

1. Notwithstanding Israel’s unique challenges of the chaotically unpredictable state of the Middle East, the Islamic and Arab onslaught, the scarcity of natural resources (other than brain power), the UN enmity, the European appeasement of rogue regimes, systematic criticism by the “elite” media and the attempt to boycott, divest and sanction, the independent, non-partisan quarterly, The American Interest, stated on January 24: “This is there is a new name on our list of The Eight Greats, Israel….

“Israel is a rising power with a growing impact on world affairs…. Large off-shore discoveries of natural gas and oil are turning Israel into an energy exporter [e.g., a $3.5bn-$4bn dollar initiative was just concluded to expand Israel’s natural gas fields]…. Turkey’s ties with Israel strengthened…. Israel’s newfound clout comes from the rise of industrial sectors and technologies that good Israeli schools, smart Israeli policies and talented Israeli thinkers and entrepreneurs have built…. The rise of domestic cybersecurity and infotech economy…. Private investors all over the world look to invest in Israel’s tech startups…. It’s not just America; India, China and Russia want a piece of Israeli tech wizardry…. In the Middle East, Israel has been transformed from a pariah state to a kingmaker…. Never has Egypt-Israel security cooperation been as close as it is today…. The rise of Iran has made Israel critical to the survival of the Sunni Arabs, including the Gulf States…. Israel begins 2017 as the keystone of a regional anti-Iran alliance, a most-favored-nation in the White House and a country that enjoys good relations with all of the world’s major powers bar Iran….

2. Bloomberg, February 16, 2017: Israel’s economy grew 6.2% in the fourth quarter of 2016, its most robust gain since 2014, sending the Shekel to its strongest level in more than two years. GDP for 2016 grew 4%, the most since 2013, supported by record-low unemployment rate of 4.3% in December, 2016. Manufacturing reached its highest level in 7 years. Exports advanced 11.2% and capital investment grew by 7.4%.

3. Israel’s debt-to-GDP ratio has systematically declined (62.1% in 2016), compared with Japan’s 250.4%, the USA’s 104.9%, France’s 97.1%, the Euro bloc’s 91.7%, Britain’s 89%, Germany’s 68.2% and South Korea’s 39.9% (Globes, January 23).

4. In 2016, Israel’s population grew by 2% – compared to 1.2% globally, 0.81% in the USA and 0.18% decline in Germany – identical to Israel’s population annual growth during the last 10 years – 83% due to natural growth and 17% due to Aliyah (Jewish immigration), resulting in a substantial expansion of Israel’s infrastructures of housing, transportation, education, health, medical, etc. (Globes business daily, January 9, 2017).

5. While global venture capital funding has declined during the last two years – according to PriceWaterHouseCoopers, Money Tree and CB Insights – $420mn were invested, during January 2017, in Israel’s hightech companies, sustaining the record level of 2016. Israel’s cyber technology companies attract investments. IntSights raised $15mn, 6 months following a round of $7.5mn. Israel’s CrediFi raised $13mn (Globes, Feb. 14). Israel’s Feedvisor raised $20mn (Globes, Feb. 1). Israel’s cyber security SentinelOne raised $70mn, led by RedPoint from the Silicon Valley (Globes, January 26), which also invested $16mn – along with Emergence Capital from the Silicon Valley – in Israel’s Chorus.ai (artificial intelligence), according to Globes, Feb. 8).

6. John Donovan, AT&T’s Exec. Vice President and Chief Strategist: In 2010, we established a research & development center in Israel, which offers a unique array of startups. Unlike other US companies, which acquire Israeli companies, we consider Israel a platform of development and expansion. AT&T’s personnel has grown 20% in 2016 (Globes, Jan. 17).

New National Security Advisor doesn’t believe in “radical Islamic terrorism”? By Ed Straker

President Trump’s new National Security Advisor doesn’t believe it is “helpful” to say the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”

President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.

The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

Wrong. The tens of thousands of people fighting in the “Islamic State” and Al Qaida and Boko Haram and Hamas and Hizbullah are radical Muslims. To pretend that they are not Muslims is to deny who the enemy is, and to give comfort to Muslim governments like Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan who are on the fence about confronting radical Islamists in their own rank.

In his language, General McMaster is closer to the positions of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both took pains to separate acts of terrorism from Islamic teaching, in part because they argued that the United States needed the help of Muslim allies to hunt down terrorists.

So we are now back to the Obama-era policy of refusing to say who the enemy is?

I don’t blame General McMaster for his Obama-style views.

I blame Donald Trump. He and his staff did a terrible job of vetting for this position, especially since an eminently qualified candidate, John Bolton, was available. McMaster’s view of the fight against radical Islam should have been the very first question that Trump asked him. Now it looks like Trump didn’t ask the question at all.

It reminds me how President Trump promised on the campaign trail to bring back waterboarding “and worse” for terrorists, and then hired General Mattis as his Secretary of Defense. After that, Trump seemed surprised to learn that Mattis was against it. Well, so much for another campaign promise.

This has not been his only bad pick. This week he had to fight Betsy DeVos, his own Secretary of Education, who reportedly wanted the federal government to force schools to let disguised boys into girls’ bathrooms.

Donald Trump campaigned for president saying that he knew how to hire the best people. Some of his picks, like Jeff Sessions for Attorney General and Scott Pruitt at the EPA, have been excellent. Others, like George Soros minion Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, and now a NSA advisor who won’t say “radical Islam,” are terrible. I think we could get the same results using a dart board or a roulette wheel.

Nine Causes of Scientific Decline in American Academia By Leo Goldstein ****

People frequently write about academic political bias but rarely about the degradation of academic scientific capacities. Nevertheless, the signs of this degradation are everywhere. One example is embracing the pseudo-science of climate alarmism. The degree of enthusiasm has varied from Caltech’s tacit approval to the full-throat fervor of Harvard University president Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust. Another sign is a chronic failure of the $300 billion-dollar-a-year post-secondary educational system to produce enough computer specialists. Lastly, there’s the academia’s failure to distance itself from the Union of Concerned Scientists (Disclosure: the author has a pending lawsuit against the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Ford Foundation and other defendants.) and the ongoing “Bill Nye the Science Guy” media hoax.

In hindsight, over the period from the late 1980s to 2016, many factors had contributed to the downfall of the academic integrity and scientific capacity. The major factors were:

1. Unnatural, politically-spurred growth of college enrollment without regard to the economic or social demand for the increasing number of college graduates and even the supply of sufficiently prepared and motivated college applicants. This quantity instead of quality approach has been known to be harmful, and it was.

2. The takeover of the universities and colleges by the New Left. Apparently, many radicals of the 60s hadn’t learned from the fall of the Soviet Union and continued to think of the U.S. as an evil “system” that needed to be overthrown. By trusting the good will of its faculty, the university system presented the New Left an excellent opportunity to sabotage scientific development. Not all radicals went into social disciplines to poison the minds of the new generation. Some of them went into science, and corrupted scientific institutions through environmental studies and other means. Their impact was amplified by big money from the Ford Foundation and its ilk.

3. Foreign influence. Science, as a pursuit of knowledge, is international. But scientific recognition can be influenced by politics. Environmental politics of the European Union in the 1990s heavily impacted scientific processes in the U.S.

One of the most important things for a scientist is the ability to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Consequently, editors of the prestigious scientific journals wield enormous power. But most English-language scientific journals have international editorial boards. Furthermore, most scientific journals are owned by foreign publishers. The three largest scientific publishers are: Reed-Elsevier (UK), Springer (Germany), and Holtzbrinck (Germany). The latter two merged in 2015. EU-centric scientific publishing has allowed EU politics to infringe on American science without people noticing.

American academia also corruptly promoted scientists for collaboration with the International Panel on Climate Change and other UN agencies.

4. The rise of “studies” with predetermined results, as opposed to the normative sciences, valued for their understanding of the laws of nature. Certain political developments caused this. Then confrontational environmentalism and tort litigation requested scientists to back their claims, no matter what, and generously paid. This went against all norms. Science starts with empirical facts (observations or experimental results) and arrives to conclusions based on them. “Post-normal science” starts with conclusions (provided by politicians or activists) and contorts itself accordingly to justify these conclusions.