Displaying posts categorized under

ANTI-SEMITISM

MY SAY: RE-EDUCATION CAMPUS

In China The Cultural Revolution, that took place from 1966 until 1976 had a stated goal : to purge capitalism and traditional culture from Chinese society. They instituted brutal labor re-education camps.

In America anxious seniors are now worried about SAT scores, interviews and essays that have to demonstrate their passions for justice and human rights and a green planet and diversity. The chief question they ask is not about the price of tuition and room and board or the required courses. They want to know if they will be happy.

In late summer of 2018 they will take their trunks with their Che Guevara T shirts, torn designer jeans and grungy sneakers and ingrained ignorance off to campus. And once settled into their cushy dorms, their re-education will commence.

Unless they major only in science, they will learn to despise capitalism, national cultural norms, shed all gender pronouns and identity, atone for their privileges by joining all the inviting “anti” groups that rail, riot and demand recognition, avoid reading old white authors, approach every aggression and barbarism with moral relativity, read alt-history, especially about the Middle East and Palestine.

All this for an average of $50,000 a year…..rsk
P.S. They will also learn that Mao Zedong of the aforementioned re-education labor camps was a progressive.

Rights are Rights, and Military Service Isn’t One The progressive theory of rights has blurred the lines between privilege, opportunity, discrimination, and rights. By Philip H. DeVoe

When Donald Trump announced his plan to ban transgendered people from military service, #TransRightsAreHumanRights quickly began trending on Twitter. While tweets including the hashtag ranged from support for the LGBT community to attacks on Trump, they all carried with them the assumption that trans — and all — people have a “right” to serve in the military. Whether you support President Trump’s policy or not, Americans must reconsider the claim that everyone has a right to military service.

The political theory of the social compact — under which the Founders built America — says natural rights, i.e., true rights, are synonymous with personhood and belong to you simply because you exist. In a word, they are unalienable.

That military service is alienable, through restrictions on membership necessary for our military to fulfill its purpose, automatically rules it out as a right. In other words, the military blocking a 16-year-old’s ability to enlist does not divorce him from or even endanger his personhood. Children under the age of 17 or the mentally and physically disabled, for example, are excluded because their lack of mental maturity or physical capacity threatens combat readiness and effectiveness.

The justifying condition of exclusion for the sake of the group’s ability to perform and survive as a whole classifies military service as an opportunity, at most. Thus, should the Department of Defense and the president determine that 16-year-olds are fit for effective combat service, they wouldn’t be granting a right but opening an opportunity.

That being the case, when the Obama administration’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and defense secretary, Leon Panetta, opened more than 14,000 military positions to women, they did so based on new qualifications of combat readiness not on women having an inherent “right” to service:

We are fully committed to removing as many barriers as possible to joining, advancing, and succeeding in the U.S. Armed Forces. Success in our military based solely on ability, qualifications, and performance is consistent with our values and enhances military readiness.

When Ashton Carter, Obama’s fourth defense secretary and the only one without military service, opened all military positions to women, he did so for the same reason:

MY SAY: RUSSIAMON

Remember the movie “Rashomon” where four people recount totally different versions of the same incident? Now we have “Russiamon” where depending on who and what you read and who and what you watch we get totally different versions.

Which collusion colluded the most?

A.Did Hillary collude with the Russians by selling them high grade uranium?

B.Did Jared and Donald Trump Jr. collude by listening to a a “high level” lowlife from Russia?

C.Did Debbie Wasserman Schultz collude with Russia through an aide?

D. Was Melania Trump confessing collusion by wearing a bright red suit in France? Red is the color symbol for Communism.

As I said, depends what you watch and what you read…..

Why Jeff Sessions Recused The AG wasn’t weak. He was following the law and sound advice.

President Trump lashed out again Wednesday at Jeff Sessions, and his fury over the Attorney General’s recusal from the Russia campaign-meddling probe may take the President down a self-destructive path. So this is a good moment to explain why Mr. Sessions felt obliged to recuse himself and why it was proper to do so.

Mr. Trump seems to think Mr. Sessions recused himself in March due to a failure of political nerve after news broke that he had met with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 campaign. Mr. Sessions did recuse himself shortly after that story broke, and the AG didn’t help by forgetting to report those meetings during his confirmation hearing.

But Mr. Sessions and his advisers had been considering recusal long before that story broke—and for reasons rooted in law and Justice Department policy.

After Watergate in 1978, Congress passed a law requiring “the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof.”

The Justice Department implemented this language with rule 28 CFR Sec. 45.2. This bars employees from probes if they have a personal or political relationship with “any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or which they know “has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.”

This language didn’t apply to Mr. Sessions during his confirmation process because he didn’t know the contours of the FBI and Justice investigation. But the AG soon learned after he arrived at Main Justice in February that the investigation included individuals associated with the Trump presidential campaign.

Mr. Sessions had worked on the campaign, and he clearly had personal and political relationships with probable subjects of the investigation. These included former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and potentially others.

James Comey publicly confirmed this on March 20 when he told the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI “as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination.”

Some legal sages say this means Mr. Sessions did not have to recuse himself because this was a “counterintelligence,” not a criminal, probe. But you have to be credulous to think Mr. Comey would ignore potential crimes if he found them in the course of counterintelligence work. Mr. Sessions might have become a subject of the probe because of his meetings with the Russian ambassador.

The AG had no way of knowing where the investigation would lead, and the ethical considerations were serious as the post-Watergate statute makes clear. During his confirmation hearing in January, Mr. Sessions had promised that “if a specific matter arose where I believed my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, I would consult with Department ethics officials regarding the most appropriate way to proceed.”

Mr. Sessions fulfilled that promise, and on March 2 he announced that he’d recuse himself “from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States” based on the advice of senior career Justice officials. Imagine the media storm if word leaked that Mr. Sessions had ignored his department’s ethics officials.

Mr. Sessions’s recusal helped Mr. Trump for a time by eliminating an easy conflict-of-interest target for Democrats. The calls for a special prosecutor died down. They only erupted again in May after Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey and tweeted his phony threat that there might be White House tapes.

Michael Rubin:Will Mattis Betray the Gulf Allies? Has Mattis gone rogue?

At the core of the Qatar dispute is the question of Qatar’s support for extremism. While many Gulf states have histories of donating to or promoting radical Islamism, many have made real reforms. Saudi Arabia, for example, became much more serious about the need to curtail support for radical groups after the Kingdom started suffering blowback with terrorists targeting foreigners living in Saudi Arabia and senior Saudi officials. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, meanwhile, has cracked down not only on the Muslim Brotherhood but has also moved to sever the life-line Egypt often provided Hamas leaders in Gaza. Qatar, however, continues to set itself above the rest in its support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/will-mattis-betray-the-gulf-allies-qatar/

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and other moderate Arab states are rightly confused, if not frustrated, by the muddled U.S. response so far. After all, diplomats and official from these states say, both Democratic and Republican administrations in the United States have both long beseeched them to take a no-nonsense approach to extremism and to operate in a coordinated fashion against regional threats.

When they finally do, the White House flip-flops and the State Department urges compromise and negotiation. Evenhandedness is not a virtue when one side is right and the other wrong. To negotiate with regard to the acceptance of terrorist groups is, however, a very dangerous precedent. If the United States re-engaged in Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda’s bases there or began operations in Syria to counter the Islamic State, Washington would greatly resent outside powers demanding that the United States compromise with either.

In the wake of the Qatar crisis, now in its second month, Turkey set up a military base in Qatar, much to the outrage of the states seeking to pressure Qatar into compliance. That base’s closure remains a key demand among moderate Arab countries.

Now word comes that the U.S. military is planning to conduct military exercises in Qatar with the Qatari and Turkish militaries. Daily Sabah, a once independent paper which was seized by Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government and transferred to his son-in-law, quoted Qatari Defense Minister Khalid bin Mohammed al-Attiyah as saying, “Qatar, Turkey and the U.S. regularly conduct military drills in Qatar. In the near future, a joint drill will begin by the three countries.”

Pro-Palestinian activists have waved Hezbollah terror banners and burnt the Israeli flag outside the Israeli Embassy London.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/25/watch-israeli-flags-burnt-and-hezbollah-terror-banners-flown-in-london/ The demonstration was sparked by new security measures on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which have now been removed. Protesters also waved Palestinian and Turkish flags, a well as pictures of the al-Aksa mosque. Cries of “Allahu-akbar” can be heard in amateur footage of the protest. Israeli flags were snatched from members of a small counter […]

REFORM IS NEEDED ON THE ILLINOIS ARTS COUNCIL- REPLACE SHIRLEY MADIGAN BY ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

Governor Bruce Rauner can term limit the matriarch of Illinois’ most powerful political family to 41 years.

House Speaker Michael Madigan is her husband. (34 YEARS) Attorney General Lisa Madigan is her daughter.(15 YEARS0 It’s an Illinois political dynasty.

In 1976, Shirley Madigan was appointed to the Illinois Arts Council – a state agency “…making art accessible for all.” (41 years)

Madigan became the chairman in 1983. In 2017, she’s still chairman.

On July 1, Shirley Madigan’s term expired and she’s up for reappointment. Governor Bruce Rauner should replace Madigan with a fresh face.

Here’s why reform is needed on the Illinois Arts Council:

grants were conferred without official meetings

rampant conflicts of interest were ignored

millions of taxpayer dollars were funneled to asset-rich arts organizations – including media outlets – which don’t need public money.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/19/replace-shirley-madigan-on-the-illinois-arts-council/2/#70611d687a8b

The Illinois Arts Council – led by the matriarch of the most powerful political family in Illinois – conferred grants without official meetings, ignored rampant conflicts of interest, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to asset-rich organizations – including media outlets – which don’t need public money.

Although Michael Madigan has served as the Illinois House Speaker for 34 years, interrupted for just two years in the 1990s, his wife, Shirley Madigan, has clinched a position on the Illinois Arts Council since 1976. She has servedas the chair of the council since 1983.

Governor Bruce Rauner must move immediately to end Shirley Madigan’s tenure on the Illinois Arts Council. Rauner has an historic opportunity to appoint thirteen fresh faces and take a reform majority on this important council of twenty-one. Two weeks ago, Shirley Madigan’s latest term expired alongside twelve other board members.

Over the past three years, Shirley Madigan’s Arts Council rarely met. Instead of holding tri-annual board meetings – as they’ve pledged to do – the council never met during the entire fiscal year of 2016. Still, without the sunshine of a public meeting, the council paid-out grants, salaries, and operational expenses. Only later did the board ratify the payments.

How does a governmental body confer and distribute millions of dollars in federal and state funding over a two-year period without an official meeting? The Edgar County Watchdogs sued the Illinois Arts Council for violations of the Freedom of Information Act and found no official meetings from August 2014 until October 2016.

Conflicts of interest between board members and affiliated organizations are rampant at the Arts Council. In fiscal year 2015 alone, board members disclosed conflicts causing 40 vote ‘abstentions.’ Loyola University – where Shirley Madigan received her master’s degree – has received $95,100 in grants since 2012. Henry Godinez is the resident artistic associate at the Goodman Theater, and Goodman received $165,650 since 2012.

One of the most conflicted board members is Christina Gidwitz, the wife of prominent Republican scion Ron Gidwitz. Since 2014, Ms. Gidwitz’s self-declared conflicts include The Field Museum of Natural History (theyendowed the Ronald and Christina Gidwitz Hall of Birds), Loyola University (they’re big donors), and the Lyric Opera (Ron serves as a director). These entities received $503,000 in Arts Council grants since 2012.

The Illinois Arts Council’s grants are not only made in the dark and riddled with conflicts, but they’re funding some of the richest arts organizations. Largely, taxpayer funding wasn’t awarded to ‘starving artists,’ but to well-connected entities with political clout.

MY SAY: A PRAYER FOR SENATOR JOHN McCAIN

John McCain’s service to our nation in war is unequaled. He faces an enormous challenge. Shame on the media that discusses his diagnosis and prognosis. Medical research has many new modalities to treat brain tumors, and hope is critical for outlook.

Mi Sheberakh is a Hebrew prayer for physical cure and healing, offering blessing, compassion, restoration of health and strength.

It is recited by Chaplains, doctors, nurses, and family members.—

“May the One who blessed our ancestors —Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,Matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah —bless and heal the one who is ill:

May the Holy Blessed One overflow with compassion upon him.,to restore him, to heal him,to strengthen him,to enliven him.

The One will send him speedily,a complete healing —healing of the soul and healing of the body —along with all the ill, among the people of Israel and all humankind, soon, speedily, without delay.”

Amen

MY SAY: THE NEW GENDERALIZATION

When my brother and I were kids, my parents had a subscription to National Geographic magazine. The photography and the articles on flora and fauna in the jungles of the world, and lost and hidden tribes in exotic places were wonderful. Most important in those prudish days, it was the only magazine permitted in the home where one could occasionally see full frontal nudity. We eventually gratified our prurient interest in movies and television and stopped reading National Geographic.

Yesterday, at a doctor’s office I picked up the January 1, 2017 edition which was totally devoted to “Gender.” No more jungles. Just an intro by the doyenne of passe feminism, namely Gloria Steinem, who has decided that proper pronouns are anti public good. He and she, and all such gender descriptive terminology are unnecessary at best and hurtful at worst. Then the entire issue contains testimonials, lexicography, pictures of “theys” who are unsettled in their skin as a result of sexual and gender identity.

Why in the world is this subject in a whole issue of the magazine? Where are the tigers and tigresses and lions and lionesses, and hippopotamus and “hippoptamissus” of earlier issues ? Where is the gorgeous photography of mountains and jungles and giant water lilies and exotic frogs that delighted the readers?

rsk

HEADING TO THE HILLS….NO POSTINGS JULY 16TH AND JULY 17