Displaying the most recent of 91396 posts written by

Ruth King

How Hillary Clinton Became Obama’s Political Prisoner By Matthew Continetti

They’re not kidding when they say it’s difficult to hold the White House for three terms in a row. So much depends on the incumbent: Is he deemed a success or a failure? Is he loved or derided? The candidate seeking to replace a president of his own party is betting the country doesn’t want to change. Bush 41 bet correctly — in 1988. Al Gore and John McCain did not.

Hillary Clinton? Her problem was on display Thursday when she presented her anti-ISIS war plan to the Council on Foreign Relations. For ideological and political reasons, she is unable or unwilling to distinguish herself from Obama. If the war against ISIS were going well, her decision would be smart politics. But the war is not going well. The war is a disaster. A growing one, as the Paris attack made clear.

The president is quite the neoliberal — mugged by reality yet refusing to press charges. His approval rating on foreign policy is consistently underwater. Two-thirds of the country say it’s headed in the wrong direction. And yet Clinton’s ISIS strategy is essentially the same as Obama’s. Fierce airstrikes. An “intelligence surge.” Special forces. Pressure the Iraqi government to be nice to its Sunnis. Agree on a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian civil war. “Increased support from our Arab and European partners.” Accept Syrian refugees. Above all, no major deployment of U.S. troops. On ISIS, Clinton is Obama’s prisoner. A willing captive to his strategy. Where it goes, she’ll go.

Why Does the Left Continue to Insist that Islamic Terrorism Has Nothing to Do with Islam? By Jonah Goldberg

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays.

Dear Reader (Including those of you stunned by the news that Charlie Sheen has a sexually transmitted disease. Not since Jim J. Bullock announced he was gay have I been more shocked),

If you Google “Christian terrorism,” you’re probably a jackass to begin with. But if you do — bidden not by your own drive to jackassery but by the natural curiosity inspired by this “news”letter — you’ll find lots of left-wing trollery about how the worst terrorist attacks on American soil have been committed by Christians. Much of it is tendentious, question-begging twaddle. But I really don’t want to waste a lot of time on whether Tim McVeigh was a Christian or not (he really wasn’t).

What I find interesting is that many of the same people who clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with — oh, what’s the word again? — oh right: Islam, seem to have no problem making the case that “Christian terrorism” is like a real thing. Remember how so many liberals loved — loved — Obama’s sophomoric and insidious tirade about not getting on our “high horses” about ISIS’s atrocities in the here and now because medieval Christians did bad things a thousand years ago? They never seem to think that argument through. Leaving out the ass-aching stupidity of the comparison, it actually concedes the very point Obama never wants to concede. By laying the barbaric sins of Christians a thousand years ago at the feet of Christians today, he implicitly tags Muslims with the barbarism committed in their name today.

Now, I see no need to wade too deeply into the theology here, but I think I am on very solid ground when I say that Islamic terrorism draws more easily and deeply from the Koran than Tim McVeigh drew from the Christian Bible. Of course, you’re free to disagree. In a free society, everybody has the right to be wrong in their opinions. (But don’t tell anyone at Yale that.)

Donald Trump Can’t Say ‘No’ — Is That What We Want in a President? By Charles C. W. Cooke —

As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences’ prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional “yes” and “no” categories in favor of some choice hedging. “That may have to be done,” Trump says. “There’s no doubt.” “We’ll look at that.” “We’ll consider all the options.” “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely.”

So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:

“Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?”“Sure. We’re going to look at everything.”

Trump’s Muslim-Registry Blunder The Donald is wrong, but so are many of his critics. By Andrew C. McCarthy

A national-security investigation may “not [be] conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.” That clause, and others similar to it, are found throughout the Patriot Act and other provisions of federal law. They protect Americans from being subjected to surveillance based on nothing except their religious beliefs.

There’s an obvious reason for that — at least, I thought it was obvious until Donald Trump reportedly embraced the idea of forcing Muslims to register in a database. I say “reportedly” because it is not clear to me, after hearing a recording of Trump’s hectic gaggle with reporters, that he intentionally articulated such a proposal. More likely, he thoughtlessly agreed that it should be considered upon being asked some loaded questions — which is better, but not much.

The reason our law forbids investigations based on religion alone is also spelled out in the Patriot Act. As Section 102 explained: “The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing is sacrosanct in American society, and applies equally to all religious, racial, and ethnic groups.”

State Department spent $36.5 million polling foreigners’ opinions By Kellan Howell !!!!????

Would you spend money to find out what people in Spain think about their medical insurance or what people in Austria think about their government? That’s exactly what the federal government has been doing, using millions of Americans’ tax dollars.

Since 2007 the U.S. State Department has spent over $36.5 million to survey citizens in foreign countries on a wide range of topics, including general public opinion polling on how their own governments — many of them U.S. allies — are performing. And the biggest spike in that spending occurred on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s watch as secretary of state.

The polls included such topics as a “survey of medical insurance in Spain” costing $24,727, an “Elite Survey in Russia” that cost $117,000 and a “Public Opinion Poll Survey to Address Public Attitudes Toward Domestic and International Affairs in Austria,” costing $50,728.

The examples were compiled by federal spending watchdog OpenTheBooks.com in a larger oversight report on federal public opinion polling to be published after Thanksgiving.

Spending watchdogs say these polls, while informative, should be conducted and funded by private research organizations, not the U.S. taxpayer.

OPEN YOUR EYES AND OPEN THE BOOKS ****

http://www.openthebooks.com/
Showcased in today’s Washington Times, the State Department is awarded the “Golden Hammer Award” for the most egregious weekly example of waste, fraud, corruption and abuse in the nation.

The State Department spent $36.5 million polling the opinions of foreigners — even our allies, i.e. England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, Japan, etc.

Read the Golden Hammer Award at Washington Times, click here

Where did tens of millions of ‘foreign polling expenditures’ flow?
Learn how the State Department hid $34 million in survey and polling under a category of ‘miscellaneous foreign vendors.’

What would Hilary do? Did Secretary of State Hilary Clinton increase or decrease expenditures on foreign polling? Did Clinton increase the transparency of State Dept spending?

Why was State polling countries like Suriname?

TERROR IN MALI AND THE REAL MEANING OF ‘ALLAHU AKBAR’ – ON THE GLAZOV GANG

As another Islamic terrorist attack occurred in Mali’s capital of Bamako, where Muslim gunmen attacked a luxury hotel full of foreigners, killing innocents and taking 170 people hostage (see update), reports confirm that the terrorists demanded that hostages recite the Shahada (the Muslim declaration of faith) and that those who were able to do so were allowed to leave the hotel.

The terrorists were also shouting “Allahu Akbar”, which media reports perpetually inform us means “God is great” in Arabic.

But does “Allahu Akbar” really mean “God is great”?

In response to the terrorists’ shouts of “Allahu Akbar” and the media’s “translation” of it for us, The Glazov Gang is running its feature interview with Daniel Greenfield in which he discussed The Real Meaning of ‘Allahu Akbar’, explaining why you should be suspicious of the meaning the media ascribes to the Arabic expression after every Jihadi attack.

Don’t miss it!

The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt ****

In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.

Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education describing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.

Two terms have risen quickly from obscurity into common campus parlance. Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless. For example, by some campus guidelines, it is a microaggression to ask an Asian American or Latino American “Where were you born?,” because this implies that he or she is not a real American. Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response. For example, some students have called for warnings that Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart describes racial violence and that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger” a recurrence of past trauma.

Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”
According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided.

This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

The Case AGAINST United Methodist Divestment from “Companies Profiting From the Israeli Occupation” by John Lomperis

An abbreviated version of the following testimony was delivered yesterday by UMAction Director John Lomperis to the board of directors of the General Board of Pensions and Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church. This denominational agency, which manages billions of dollars of assets and investments on behalf of the church, has been pressured by activists for the Palestinian cause to divest from companies described as “profiting from the Israeli occupation,” as these same activists have successfully gotten some United Methodist annual conferences (regions) to do.

Thanks for hearing me out. I am here as your brother in Christ, as a longtime fellow United Methodist, as an elected General Conference delegate, and as the director of one of the major evangelical caucuses within our denomination, the UMAction program of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

Some activists have lobbied various United Methodist leaders to single out certain companies for divestment because of their business with Israel, particularly companies characterized as “profiting from the Israeli occupation.”

As you approach these matters, both for the board’s internal work and for your influence at General Conference, I respectfully express my hope that you will consider some reasons why such agendas are morally irresponsible, factually misleading, unrepresentative of United Methodists, and really harmful to the church we all love.

I wish to make clear that I do not adhere to the dispensationalist theology that drives many Christians to support Israel. Rather, I am driven by a deep concern that my church’s social witness be thoughtful, well-informed, and devoted to the highest standards of social justice.

Report: Majority of Arab-Israelis Support ISIS, Radical Islamic Movements The enemy within. Tiffany Gabbay

It is bad enough that Israel is forced to combat terror from Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and Palestinians bent on its destruction. But the Jewish State is also forced to deal with the enemy within. New research reveals that a majority of Arab citizens of Israel support terrorist organizations, including ISIS and say radical Islamists best-represent their true feelings.

The 2015 index measuring Arab-Israeli and Jewish-Israeli relations, published in part for the first time on Tuesday, exposes just how deep contempt for the Jewish people runs among Israel’s Arabs, who say that they are not the least bit ashamed of groups like ISIS and in fact find them good representatives of their people.