British Jews Have Reason to Fear Corbyn’s Labour Party The opposition leader has called Hamas terrorists ‘brothers’ and disparaged even domestic ‘Zionists.’ By Dovid Efune

https://www.wsj.com/articles/british-jews-have-reason-to-fear-corbyns

Lord Jonathan Sacks isn’t known to throw around accusations. So when the Commonwealth’s former chief rabbi weighed in on Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, people took notice.

Rabbi Sacks last week described Mr. Corbyn as “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate.” He called one Corbyn comment “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech,” a vicious anti-immigration diatribe. Rabbi Sacks was referring to Mr. Corbyn’s 2013 description of British “Zionists”: “They don’t want to study history and . . . they don’t understand English irony either.” On Sunday Rabbi Sacks doubled down, telling the BBC that the prospect of Mr. Corbyn as prime minister was a “danger” to British Jewry.

In July, 68 leading U.K. rabbis had written an open letter to the Guardian accusing Labour’s leadership of ignoring the Jewish community and the “severe and widespread” anti-Semitism plaguing the party. Shortly after, in an unprecedented move, the country’s three leading Jewish newspapers published joint cover stories describing the potential of a Corbyn-led government as an “existential threat to Jewish life” in Britain.

Some members of Mr. Corbyn’s own party have been unforgiving. A day after Rabbi Sacks’s remarks were published, Labour veteran Frank Field resigned from the party’s group in Parliament over the issue. Another senior party member, Dame Margaret Hodge, furiously confronted Mr. Corbyn in July and called him a “racist and anti-Semite.” Dozens of other party leaders have expressed outrage over the matter.

But Mr. Corbyn and his acolytes are having none of it—and have engaged in concerted efforts to undermine their critics.

A Labour spokesman called Rabbi Sacks’s comments “absurd and offensive.” The party briefly put Ms. Hodge under investigation. Labourites who participated in a March protest over anti-Semitism were accused of attempting to smear the party leader and were threatened with dismissal from the party via a process known as “deselection.” A letter endorsed by thousands of Corbyn supporters alleged that the gathering was the work of a “very powerful special interest group.” For his part, Mr. Corbyn claimed in an interview: “I’m not an anti-Semite in any way, never have been, never will be.” CONTINUE AT SITE

U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn Faces Pressure on Anti-Semitism Accusations Party leaders to meet this week to consider revising code of conduct on anti-Jewish speech and acts By Jason Douglas

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-faces-pressure-on-anti-semitism-accusations-1535904000?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=undefined&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

LONDON—Tony Flacks joined the British Labour Party in the early 1980s, seeing the center-left group as the natural political home for a high-school teacher working in a rundown North London district blighted by racism and discrimination.

He quit after more than three decades of membership in 2016, angry and fed up at what he perceived as the party’s reluctance to root out an ancient prejudice that he, a British Jew, saw flowering anew within its ranks: anti-Semitism. This year, for the same reason, his 29-year-old daughter followed suit.

Century-old ties between Britain’s Jewish community and the Labour Party are fraying as the U.K.’s main opposition party and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, struggle to deal with a crescendo of accusations of anti-Jewish bias.

Some lawmakers fear the controversy is denting Labour’s electoral appeal by overshadowing its attacks on Prime Minister Theresa May’s government over Brexit, housing and other policies voters say they care about.

Officials of the Labour Party, whose governing committee is meeting next week in an attempt to quell the issue, say the party deplores all forms of discrimination. They have pledged tougher penalties for any Labour members engaging in anti-Semitic speech or acts, and Mr. Corbyn has ordered up a program to educate members about anti-Semitism. The Labour leader, who has faced—and denied—several specific allegations of anti-Jewish bias himself, has told British Jews he is their ally in combating hate.Yet the party’s efforts to persuade its supporters and critics that it is tackling the problem have repeatedly fallen flat, and some supporters of the Labour leader have pushed back against the issue. Earlier this year, pollster YouGov PLC found that over 70% of the more than 1,000 Labour members it polled thought accusations of anti-Semitism were being exaggerated in a bid to undermine Mr. Corbyn’s leadership or muffle criticism of Israel.

A Swedish Shake-Up Sunday’s vote could be the next in Europe to boost the far right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-swedish-shake-up-1536191274

Now it may be Sweden’s turn. Voters head to the polls for a national election on Sunday, and as in nearly every other recent European election the polls suggest that Swedes are set to rebel against mainstream parties, especially on immigration.

As usual in Swedish elections, the top vote-getter is expected to be the center-left Social Democrats of Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. But polls currently peg the party’s support at about 25%, down from the roughly 30% in recent elections. The bigger race is for second place, between the mainstream center-right Moderate party and the heretofore fringe Sweden Democrats. Both currently enjoy between 15% and 20% support in the polls.

This means the Sweden Democrats are peeling voters away from both mainstream parties and are on track for their best-ever result. Sweden’s complicated parliamentary-seat math may still allow the Moderates to form a ruling coalition, but it would be a weak government, and the fringe party could play spoiler on specific legislation.

In a now familiar European story, the top three issues have been migration, migration and migration. Sweden welcomed more than its fair share of Middle Eastern migrants in 2015, with a ratio of migrants to locals even greater than in Germany. But voters quickly had second thoughts, and in late 2015 Mr. Löfven’s government tried to shut the door by imposing new border checks to block migrant entries.

Blame Congress for Politicizing the Court When lawmakers hand power to bureaucrats, the people expect judges to act as superlegislators. By Ben Sasse

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blame-congress-for-politicizing-the-court-1536189015
Mr. Sasse, a Nebraska Republican, is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is adapted from his opening statement at Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water. He’s been declared an existential threat to the nation. Alumni of Yale Law School, incensed that faculty members at his alma mater praised his selection, wrote a public letter to the school saying: “People will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.”

It’s predictable now that every Supreme Court confirmation hearing will be a politicized circus. This is because Americans have accepted a bad new theory about how the three branches of government should work—and in particular about how the judiciary operates.

In the U.S. system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of politics. Why isn’t it? For the past century, more legislative authority has been delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is weak, and most people here in Congress want their jobs more than they want to do legislative work. So they punt most of the work to the next branch.

The consequence of this transfer of power is that people yearn for a place where politics can actually be done. When we don’t do a lot of big political debating here in Congress, we transfer it to the Supreme Court. And that’s why the court is increasingly a substitute political battleground. We badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power to our constitutional system.

If there are lots of protests in front of the Supreme Court, that’s an indication that the republic isn’t healthy. People should be protesting in front of this body instead. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy—because making laws means we have to hash out matters about which we don’t all agree.

How did the legislature decide to give away its power? We’ve been doing it for a long time. Over the course of the past century, especially since the 1930s and ramping up since the 1960s, the legislative branch has kicked a lot of its responsibility to alphabet-soup bureaucracies. These are the places where most actual policy-making—in a way, lawmaking—happens now.

What we mostly do around this body is not pass laws but give permission to bureaucracy X, Y or Z to make lawlike regulations. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven’t read, filled with terms that are undefined, and we say the secretary or administrator of such-and-such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our jobs. That’s why there are so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary—because Congress rarely finishes its work. CONTINUE AT SITE

Ben Sasse’s ‘Tell It Like It Is’ Moment at Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing By Chris Queen

https://pjmedia.com/trending/ben-sasses-tell-it-like-it-is-moment/

The Nebraska senator’s statement may wind up being the most blistering moment of the hearings.

As the hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court generated a partisan circus — complete with protesters in Handmaid’s Tale garb — one man stood above the fray to deliver a splash of cold water to the face of Congress. That man was Ben Sasse.

Senator Sasse (R-Neb.) made one of the most impassioned statements of his career on Tuesday. In ten minutes, he held forth on what is wrong with the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process.

The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips broke Sasse’s speech down into four bullet points:

1. Congress is set up to be the most po­lit­i­cal branch. “This is sup­posed to be the in­sti­tu­tion dedi­cat­ed to po­lit­i­cal fights,” Sasse said.

2.But in the name of politics, lawmakers have de­cid­ed to keep their jobs rath­er than take tough votes. “Most people here want their jobs more than they re­al­ly want to do legis­la­tive work, and so they punt their legis­la­tive work to the next branch,” Sasse said.

3. Be­cause Congress of­ten lets the ex­ec­u­tive branch write rules, and Americans aren’t sure who in the gov­ern­ment bureauc­ra­cy to talk to, that leaves Americans with no oth­er place than the courts to turn to ex­press their frus­tra­tion with poli­cies. And the Su­preme Court, with its nine vis­i­ble mem­bers, is a con­veni­ent out­let. Sasse: “This trans­fer of pow­er means people yearn for a place where politics can be done, and when we don’t do a lot of big po­lit­i­cal debate here, people trans­fer it to the Su­preme Court. And that’s why the Su­preme Court is in­creas­ing­ly a sub­sti­tute po­lit­i­cal battle­ground for America.”

4. Sasse’s final point is one you can prob­a­bly guess is com­ing by now: That this proc­ess needs to change. If Congress did more legis­lat­ing, these Su­preme Court nom­i­na­tion bat­tles would get less po­lit­i­cal, he ar­gues: “If we see lots and lots of pro­tests in front of the Su­preme Court, that’s a pret­ty good ba­rom­e­ter of the fact that our re­pub­lic isn’t heal­thy. They shouldn’t be pro­test­ing in front of the Su­preme Court, they should be pro­test­ing in front of this body.”

Clearly, in the senator’s eyes, Congress isn’t doing what the public has elected them to do, and this failure of the body to do its job has led directly to the divided, heated hearings we see every time a potential Supreme Court justice is up for confirmation these days. CONTINUE AT SITE

Capitol Police Arrested 143 Protesters in the First Two Days of the Kavanaugh Hearings By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/trending/capitol-police-arrested-143-protesters-in-the-first-two-days-of-the-kavanaugh-hearings/

From the very first moments of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats and protesters interrupted and shouted down the proceedings. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) likened the situation to “mob rule,” and the Capitol Police reported that in the first two days, they have arrested 143 protesters.

“The United States Capitol Police responded to numerous incidents of unlawful demonstration activities within the Senate Office Buildings that were associated with today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing,” the police said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

“Sixty-six individuals were removed from the Committee room in the Hart Senate Office Building, and were charged with D.C. Code §22–1321 – Disorderly conduct,” the statement reported. “In addition, six individuals were removed from the fourth floor of the Russell Senate Office Building for unlawful demonstration activities and were charged with D.C. Code §22-1307 – Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding.”

Finally, one person “was arrested in the Hart Atrium and was charged with D.C. Code §22-1307 – Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding, and D.C. Code §22-405.01 – Resisting Arrest.”

These 73 protesters joined the 70 arrested on Tuesday. The Capitol Police reported removing 61 people on the first day of the hearings, and charging them with disorderly conduct. They also removed nine more protesters from the second floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for unlawful demonstration.

The hearings are ongoing, with no sign that the protests will stop.

As Law & Crime’s Ron Blitzer reported, three medical doctors have claimed that the protesters are being paid to stand up in the middle of the hearings and start shouting, only to be escorted out and charged by police.

Adam Schindler, president of Schindler Digital, tweeted two photos: one showing a woman getting paid while in line to enter the hearing, and another showing the same woman escorted out of the hearing.

Schindler presented the photos as “proof the protesters were paid off in line.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The Spy in the White House, the Dogs in the Manger By Michael Walsh

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/05/the

The New York Times hit a new journalistic low on Wednesday with the publication of an anonymous op-ed, purportedly by a senior member of the Trump Administration, that reveals the existence of a sapper within the president’s circle. No doubt commissioned to coincide with the release of Bob Woodward’s latest exercise in Washington fiction, Fear, as well the orgy of crocodile tears occasioned by the passing of John McCain, it portrays an erratic, amoral president entirely unmoored from previous notions of ideological or party fidelity, whose impulsive behavior his aides are trying, with only some success, to contain and correct.

“This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state,” writes the author. “It’s the work of the steady state.”

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful. It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

Not for the first time, what’s going on in Washington brings to mind not the late Roman Empire, but the early one—the Julian line that began with Caesar, passed through Augustus and Tiberius, and then degenerated into the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and ended with Nero. As the Republic morphed into the Empire, the Senate receded in importance, as did the twin consuls, annually elected. Powerful women—the mothers, wives, and mistresses of the emperors—wielded great power. And yet, in the end, nearly all died unnatural deaths, assassinated (all but Augustus, in fact), murdered, executed, or forced to suicide. To spare you reading Gibbon in his magnificent entirety: the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was written in the stars, right from the start, just as Shakespeare said.

THE WIFE- A REVIEW BY MARILYN PENN

http://politicalmavens.com/

Heavy-handed and cliche-ridden are the kindest adjectives I can summon for the screenplay of Meg Wolitzer’s novel; since I never read that, I can’t say whether “The Wife” is faithful to the original, but the film bats it out of the ballpark on both scores. The plot concerns a writer/husband who wins the Nobel Prize for Literature and his long-suffering writer/wife who turns out to be the actual talent that sparked his otherwise lifeless output. This is not a spoiler because the revelation is obvious at the start from the following tonsorial clues: Glenn Close has a hairdo like Joan of Arc, Jonathan Pryce has wild hair and a scruffy beard, the disturbed son has a nutty comb-forward – uh oh – something’s not right with this family!

In subsequent flashbacks, we will see that Glenn has been locked in a room to pound away at a typewriter for 8 hours a day while her little boy screams for his mommy outside. We will learn that a successful writer advised her that “nobody reads books by women,” obviously leaving her with no choice but to ghost her husband’s work. While in captivity, Glenn clearly hasn’t heard about the hundreds of highly successful women writers in mid-century America (see Wikipedia’s list for evidence). The stereotype of Jonathan Pryce’s Jewish serial lecher is the equivalent of Shylock’s money-lending skills and of course it will extend into the Nobel ceremony itself. If you’re a male Jewish writer, your genes are partly in your jeans.

The Misrepresentation of Israel’s Democracy Matthew Continetti

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/misrepresentation-israels-democracy/

Early in the morning of July 19, after eight hours of debate, the Knesset passed by a vote of 62–55 (with two abstentions) a law codifying Israel’s status as the national home of the Jewish people. First introduced in 2011 by the centrist Kadima Party, the so-called nation-state bill joined more than a dozen “Basic Laws” that now function as Israel’s unwritten constitution. Its 11 paragraphs mostly restate long-operative principles of Israeli democracy: Hebrew is the national language, “Hatikvah” is the national anthem, the menorah is the national emblem, Jerusalem is the nation’s capital, and Israel is where the self-determination of the Jewish nation is exercised.

One might find it surprising that such generalities would provoke a global outcry. Then again, Israel and selective indignation seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. Criticisms run the gamut from saying the law is unnecessary and provocative to saying it’s racist and anti-democratic. The Israeli left, in alliance with Israel’s minority Arabs and Druze, has marched in the streets. Institutions of the Jewish Diaspora have called for the law’s repeal. They have found themselves, rather uneasily, on the same side of the debate as anti-Zionists and Israel-haters in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in Muslim capitals, and in the EU and UN. “The spirit of Hitler, which led the world to a great catastrophe, has found its resurgence among some of Israel’s leaders,” said Turkey’s Recep Tayip Erdogan.

Leaving aside anti-Semites such as Erdogan, reasonable people and friends of Israel may disagree about the necessity and utility of the nation-state law. Such disagreement, however, ought to be based on facts. And facts have been sorely lacking in recent discussions of Israel—thanks to an uninformed, biased, and one-sided media. Major journalistic institutions have become so wedded to a pro-Palestinian, anti–Benjamin Netanyahu narrative, in which Israel is part of a global trend toward nationalist authoritarian populism, that they have abdicated any responsibility for presenting the news in a dispassionate and balanced manner. The shameful result of this inflammatory coverage is the normalization of anti-Israel rhetoric and policies and widening divisions between Israel and the Diaspora.

Journalist Paralyzed, Gravely Ill in Turkish Prison by Uzay Bulut

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12943/turkey-journalist-prison

Medeni Duran wrote that his imprisoned brother Metin “cannot walk, speak, or eat and does not recognize anyone anymore. He can only breathe.”

Mistreatment and even torture of journalists and media employees, along with arbitrary arrests, are getting alarmingly commonplace in Turkey.

At least 183 journalists and media workers in Turkey in are being held, either in pretrial detention or serving a prison sentence, according to the Platform for Independent Journalism.

Dissident journalists and writers in Turkey increasingly face government threats and arbitrary arrests for their work and opinions, but for Metin Duran, the punishments have been even more grotesque.

Duran, 37, has been jailed on terrorism-related charges in Sincan Prison, near Ankara, since March 30, 2018. But he is not aware of where he is or what the court decided about him.

A former journalist for Radyo Rengin, a radio station in the city of Mardin in southeastern Turkey, Duran lost part of his memory, along with his ability to walk and speak, after a stroke that followed a heart attack on October 10, 2015. Yet despite these crippling disabilities, he was sent to prison on March 30 and remains there, the Mezopotamya news agency (MA) reported.

Ahmet Kanbal, the journalist who covered Duran’s imprisonment for Mezopotamya, told Gatestone:

“Duran’s trial got started in 2015 and lasted for more than a year. He was eventually sentenced to a prison term of three years, one month, and fifteen days. His lawyer then appealed to the Supreme Court; this proceeding also lasted for more than two years. When Duran’s punishment was finally approved, he was arrested on his sickbed on March 30.”

Duran’s radio station was shut down by emergency decree following an attempted coup in 2016 against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.