Progressives Are Bending Over Backwards to Excuse Anti-Trump Violence By Debra Heine

It keeps happening. In Chicago, Kansas City, South Bend, Janesville, Albuquerque, Costa Mesa, and countless other cities, gaggles of paid, increasingly violent left-wing agitators are doing their best to shut down the rights of Trump supporters to peacefully assemble. In some cases, they are even physically attacking people. Earlier this year in Chicago (ground zero for left-wing agitation), the protesters actually succeeded in shutting down a rally. All across the nation, people’s constitutional rights of free speech and free assembly are being threatened by unhinged and out-of-control radicals.

Last night in San Jose, yet another violent mob of far-left protesters assailed and assaulted Trump supporters as they were leaving a rally, in the latest example of this ongoing anti-democratic spectacle.

Trump supporters were assaulted and even pelted with eggs when they left a San Jose rally for the presumptive Republican nominee.

The crowd also stole Trump merchandise and set it on fire, and they yelled accusations of racism at Trump’s backers.

One Trump supporter told a news report that he had his Trump sign stolen and was then sucker-punched.

Some members of the media characterized the incidents as “fights.” These weren’t fights; they were violent assaults. In the photograph below, a terrified young guy is running for his life with the mob in close pursuit.

This is what passes for political engagement in 2016 America:
Protesters against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump chase a man leaving a Trump campaign rally on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. (AP Photo/Noah Berger) Protesters against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump chase a man leaving a Trump campaign rally on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. (AP Photo/Noah

Republicans Seek Documents On Scrubbing of Iran Video The State Department said a technician deleted part of a press briefing video containing statements on negotiations with Iran By Jay Solomon and Felicia Schwartz see note please

State John Kerry, said Friday that the doctoring of several minutes of videotape from a State Department press briefing about the Iran nuclear negotiations was “clumsy and stupid and inappropriate”…..Could have described himself….rsk

WASHINGTON—State Department officials tried Friday to address the widening fallout from their admission this past week that a videotaped press briefing had been doctored to remove contradictory public statements about the Obama administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.

Congressional Republicans demanded documents related to the episode and called Friday for an investigation by the department’s inspector general. But senior Obama administration officials were unclear about just how much cooperation they would lend to Capitol Hill investigators or whether an additional internal review was warranted.

State Department officials confirmed this past week that a lower-level civil servant was asked to expunge roughly nine minutes of tape from a Dec. 2, 2013, briefing during which a Fox News reporter quizzed then-State Department spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, about whether the administration had lied about holding secret negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Earlier that year, Ms. Psaki’s predecessor said there had been no secret, one-on-one talks between the U.S. and Iran. Asked about that assertion, Ms. Psaki replied indirectly, saying that sometimes “diplomacy needs privacy.” That was the portion deleted from the video, though it remained in a text transcript.

State Department officials have said Ms. Psaki didn’t herself order the doctoring of the tape. But they haven’t determined which official in the State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs made the request, and have suggested they might never find out.

“We’re in the process of studying the letters. We’re in the process of seeing how to be responsive,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters on Friday, asked about the congressional demands. “We believe we have investigated the incident to the point we can.” CONTINUE AT SITE

How the Yale Halloween Vigilantes Finally Got Their Way Nicholas and Erika Christakis step down from their administrative posts, closing a sorry chapter at the university. By Zachary Young

Nicholas Christakis and his wife, Erika, came to Yale University in 2013 with high expectations. At Harvard, the couple had held prominent teaching and administrative roles. At Yale, Dr. Christakis, a sociologist and physician, received a laboratory directorship and four appointments; Ms. Christakis, an expert in early-childhood education, became a seminar instructor. Two years after their arrival at Yale, Dr. Christakis and Ms. Christakis were awarded positions as master and associate master of Silliman College, Yale’s largest residential college. (I attend the university and reside at Silliman).

Last week, the Christakises resigned those posts.

Their departure comes as no surprise. For seven months, the couple has been subject to bullying, harassment and intimidation. They inadvertently became a national media story last fall and catalyzed a month of campus protests, prompting Yale President Peter Salovey to tell minority students: “We failed you.”

The Christakises encountered a witch-hunt mentality on a contemporary college campus. It began fittingly on the day before Halloween, when Ms. Christakis questioned guidelines from Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee warning against “culturally unaware or insensitive” costumes. Ms. Christakis reasoned, in an email to Silliman residents, that students should decide for themselves how to dress for Halloween, without the administration’s involvement.

Student radicals of the 1960s might have recognized her note as a defense of free expression, but those days are long gone. Instead, Ms. Christakis was denounced as a proponent of cultural insensitivity. Irate students circulated petitions, wrote editorials and posted social-media tirades. They scribbled criticisms in chalk outside the Christakises’ home and posted degrading images of them online. Two student groups demanded their removal from Silliman. CONTINUE AT SITE

John O’Sullivan Cameron’s Brexit Bind

Those who wish Britain to remain in Europe are given to depicting Leave supporters as ill-educated simpletons, not to mention crypto-fascists and, inevitably, vile racists to boot. Perhaps they haven’t noticed that elitist disdain is driving a global wave of populist rebellions
The referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union will be held on June 23, so much of what I write here in mid-May may be falsified by intervening events. At this mid-point, however, the campaign seems to have settled into a surprisingly stable pattern.

Downing Street (which for practical purposes is HQ for Remain) initially expected that it would establish an early commanding lead over Leave with an artillery barrage of attacks on a range of vital issues. But only one of those issues reflected an optimistic European theme: namely, that David Cameron had brought back from Brussels a reform package that would safeguard Britain from future excessive regulation in a freer and more flexible Europe. And that was laughed out of court when Cameron’s reform package was revealed to be both trivial and reversible by European courts. It now barely features even in the speeches of loyalist cabinet ministers.

That has left Remain dependent on a series of arguments that are less pessimistic than outright defeatist in a campaign that even its supporters label “Project Fear”. Its central theme is that Britain is too small and unimportant to survive as an independent state in a dangerous world and that to believe otherwise is neo-imperial nostalgia. Accordingly, when the campaign opened a few weeks ago, Remain supporters deluged the voters with a series of predictions that Brexit would mean losing cheap air fares, losing second homes abroad, losing millions of jobs, losing inward investment, losing various amounts of money per family, losing national security guarantees, losing intelligence on terrorism, losing control of immigration, and losing anything that had popped into the speaker’s head a moment before.

Insofar as these claims raised anything of general intellectual interest, it was that a Tory Prime Minister was heading a political campaign that was passionately left-wing in its contempt for patriotism, its dismissal of the possibility that the British people could prosper through their own efforts, and its assertion that salvation was to be found only in undemocratic supra-national institutions.

Otherwise, most of the particular arguments—losing cheap air fares, for instance—evaporated as soon as uttered. Still, Downing Street thought that it had a strong runner in Brexit as a threat to Britain’s national security. Cameron declared in a major speech in early May that Brexit threatened the country with a third world war. This was so over-the-top that it discredited the larger argument completely. Commentators weighed in to claim that Cameron couldn’t possibly believe it himself. By degrees, the security argument vanished from Project Fear.

Timothy O’Hare When the China Shop Needs a Bull

The Republican establishment dismissed Donald Trump as a joke, then reacted to initial victories with confident predictions his salad days would wilt and fade. What didn’t resonate in Washington’s hermetically sealed echo chamber was disgust, not with the tycoon but with the elites.
The sentiment is familiar: ‘I hope the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump because it will be a bloodbath for them’, or words to that effect, is a social-media staple among non-Republicans. The seductive notion is that Trump is so unpalatable he will lose November’s presidential election in a landslide to Hillary Clinton. Therefore, or so the logic goes, Republicans would do better with someone less divisive. As a prevailing meme it serves not only as a reminder of the folly in taking advice from political enemies, but also of the punditocracy’s abysmal record of what are, quite frankly, delusional prognostications.

When the primaries season began, the conventional wisdom was ‘Republicans will never nominate Trump’. When the tycoon began to gain traction, it was ‘Trump will crash and burn’ and ‘he’s a temporary fad’. As he continued to gather delegates, wishful thinking coloured the prophecies, as in ‘they’ll wise up and pick Jeb Bush’. Each and every reading of the auguries proved untrue, a reminder that few things can equal the inertial mass of a political elite confronting a contrary reality. Whatever else Trump has achieved, he has certainly eroded the credibility of numerous political commentators.

The pundits’ mistake was to apply the rules of 2012 four years too late. When Trump denounced illegal aliens and the crimes many commit, the media establishment painted him as a racist and, tellingly, neglected to mention that his pledge to build a wall along the Rio Grande was prompted by, to cite but one example, the Mexican thug who had been deported five times before slipping over the border yet again to kill a young woman in San Francisco. Those who voted for Trump knew better. They grasped that there is already a border “wall” of sorts — armed patrols, cyclone wire, movement detectors – it’s just that it doesn’t work very well. In 2012, the racist tag worked just fine as a handy smear. Today, though, non-pundit Americans have watched the invasion of Europe, seen the erosion of borders and national sovereignty, made note of crimes committed by those with no legal right to be on US soil. In the world they inhabit, the world the elites refuse to acknowledge, what Trump says makes perfect sense.

Likewise, Trump’s pronouncements on Islamic immigration. After every latest Islamist massacre the elites grab the nearest photogenic imam, summon the media and proclaim Islam as the Religion of Peace™. Voters, however, recall 9/11 and, more recently, the San Bernadino massacre by a Muslim husband and wife who killed the very same workmates who organised a baby shower for them. Once again, Trump emerges as the candidate who best grasps reality.

Likewise, previous orthodoxies also have been called into question. Obama campaigned in 2008 on the implicit pledge that he would restore the world’s love for America by renouncing what he evidently regarded as its arrogant and imperialist hubris. The result? A shrunken global presence, a shameful deal with Iran’s religious fascists and a vacuum where once Pax Americana prevailed. These factors, compounded and manifested in the rise of the Tea Party, contributed to an overall feeling of disconnect between Main Street and its Washington betters.

‘State of the Heart’: Israeli Medical Conference Highlights Cardiovascular Advancements

Haifa (TPS) – Hundreds of international researchers and healthcare
professionals gathered at the Rambam Hospital in Haifa this week for a
conference dubbed “State of the Heart.”

The conference addressed global challenges in cardiovascular treatment
and highlighted innovative changes in the field as a result of
cutting-edge technology. The Rambam Health Care Campus is a 1,000-bed
academic hospital serving over two million residents of northern
Israel.

The conference culminated with the Rambam Award ceremony, which
“recognizes remarkable individuals for their contributions to
medicine, science, and technology as well as their passion and special
generosity to the State of Israel.”
Awards and honorable recognition were given this year to Professor
Eric Topol of the Scripps Translational Science Institute, Sandor
Frankel of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, and to
Professor William Brody, the former president of the Salk Institute.

Brody was recognized for innovations in the treatment of
cardiovascular disease. He specializes as a physician and engineer in
imaging technologies—an aspect of cardiovascular treatment that has
come a long way with MRI and CT scan capabilities.

Donald Trump: An Old-fashioned Whig by Susan Hanssen

With Trump as nominee, social conservatives might think that by not voting for him they are keeping their hands clean. These people fail to recognize that under a Clinton regime there will be no refuge from a systematic agenda that seeks to destroy the very notion of “nature” and of any restraint on federal power.

Trump is an old-fashioned Whig—and I am not referring to his hair.

In an excellent article at Public Discourse, Matthew Franck compared Donald Trump to Stephen Douglas, “the showboat orator, the bulldog debater, the racial demagogue, the slippery character seeking to wriggle free of Lincoln’s grasp, and finally the exhausted boozer losing his voice.” But the historical analogy could be read in a very different way.

As Allen Guelzo points out, “the greatest danger to democracy” in the 1840s “was not an insurrection of discontented laborers but the maneuverings of a pig-eyed aristocracy to strike up a dark alliance with the working classes, whispering that economic mobility was a chimera and that what the workers needed was subsidy and protection from mobility.” Clearly, the Democratic Party has been the demagogue party since its inception. The nineteenth-century Democrats offered slavery—not only racial slavery in the South, but also the slavery of cradle-to-grave socialism, as Orestes Brownson made clear in his essay “On the Laboring Classes.” The fact that we can imagine Trump as a new threat of demagoguery demonstrates quite brilliantly Alasdair MacIntyre’s old point: “The barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament.”

The French Appetite for Appeasement by George Igler

France’s Socialist Party government has unveiled a new legislative program designed to decrease the likelihood of further Islamic atrocities, largely it seems that would have ensured the success of the jihadist attacks committed so far.

In the measures revealed, proactively combatting criminals appears to have taken a back seat to placating the communities from which they are drawn.

Whereas protests by French people against Islamization or government policy, have been rigorously curtailed by the authorities, migrant gangs have still felt able to terrorize French towns, stampede French motorways, or conduct mass armed brawls in Paris, with little fear of intervention from either security services or the law.

In 2014, an ICM poll discovered that 27% of French citizens aged 18-24 supported ISIS.

Last year Muslim jihadists murdered more people in France, than were killed by terrorism in the country during the entire 20th century.

In response, the Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, has announced a range of innovative legal measures, introduced in response to the terrorist outrages which struck France in 2015.

On January 7, of that year, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi stormed the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, massacring twelve and injuring eleven others.

Pathfinder Pioneer: The Memoir of a Lead Bomber Pilot in World War II by Colonel (Ret.)Raymond E. Brim, USAF

Off we go into the wild blue yonder,
Climbing high into the sun;
Here they come zooming to meet our thunder,
At ’em boys, Give ‘er the gun! (Give ‘er the gun now!)
Down we dive, spouting our flame from under,
Off with one heckuva roar!
We live in fame or go down in flame.
Hey! Nothing’ll stop the U.S. Air Force!

Words and Music by Captain Robert Crawford, ©1939 as the “Army Air Corps Song
This is a memoir of a hero and patriot gifted with memory and insight published by Casemate, a UK publishing firm for military history. Colonel Brim is 93 years old.

In this engaging book we see how an 18-year-old miner shoveling ore from deep in the ground in Utah suddenly found himself, only two years later, 30,000 feet in the air over Nazi Germany, piloting a Flying Fortress in the first wave of America’s air counteroffensive in Europe.

Like thousands of other young Americans, Ray Brim was plucked by the U.S. Army to be a combat flyer, and was quickly pitted against the hardened veterans of the Luftwaffe. Brim turned out to have a natural knack for flying, however, and was assigned to the select squadron developing lead Pathfinder techniques, while experimenting with radar. He was among the first to test the teeth of the Luftwaffe’s defenses, and once those techniques had been honed, thousands of other bomber crews would follow into the maelstrom, from which 80,000 never returned.

This work gives us vivid insights into the genesis of the American air campaign, told with the humor, attention to detail and humility that captures the heart and soul of our “Greatest Generation.” Brim was one of the first Pathfinder pilots to fly both day and night missions leading bomb groups of 600-plus bombers to their targets. At the onset of his missions in the spring of 1943, B-17 crews were given a 50-50 chance of returning. Each of his raids were nerve-wracking forays into the unknown; with struggles to survive the damage to his plane due to flak and German fighter attacks, in order to bring his 10-man crew home, often wounded but still alive.

Who were the 1948 Arab refugees? Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Contrary to conventional “wisdom,” most Arabs in British Mandate Palestine – and most of the 320,000 1948 Arab refugees – were migrant workers and descendants of the 1831-1947 Muslim immigrants from Egypt, the Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, as well as from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, North Africa, Bosnia, India, Afghanistan, etc.. Britain enticed Arab immigration and blocked Jewish immigration.

Thus, between 1880 and 1919, Haifa’s Arab population surged from 6,000 to 80,000, mostly due to migrant workers. The eruption of WW2 accelerated the demand for Arab manpower by the British Mandate’s military and its civilian authorities.

Moreover, Arab migrant workers were imported by the Ottoman Empire, and then by the British Mandate, to work in major civilian and military infrastructure projects. Legal and illegal Arab migrants were, also, attracted by economic growth, which was generated by the Jewish community beginning in 1882.

According to a 1937 report by the British Peel Commission (featured in the ground-breaking book, Palestine Betrayed , by Prof. Efraim Karsh), “during 1922 through 1931, the increase of Arab population in the mixed-towns of Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem was 86%, 62% and 37% respectively, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7% and a decrease of 2 percent in Gaza.”

Irrespective of occasional Arab emigration from British Mandate Palestine – due to intra-Arab terrorism, which has been an endemic feature in the Middle East – the substantial wave of Arab immigration from 1831-1947 triggered dramatic growth of the Arab populations in Jaffa (17 times), Haifa (12 times) and Ramla (5 times).