A TALE OF TWO MASS SHOOTINGS

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/05/17/a-tale-of-two-mass-shootings/

In the span of one month, there were two mass shootings. Both took place in New York. Both were racially motivated. Both shooters were violent extremists. But the media tied only one of them to a mainstream political party. Can you guess why?

Immediately after the identity of the alleged Buffalo shooter – initially charged with one murder and suspected of killing 10 – became known, the chattering class was insisting that he was not a “lone wolf” and pinned the blame for the massacre on “right-wing extremists” who “control the Republican party.”

The Rolling Stone called the 18-year-old Payton Gendron “a mainstream Republican.”

“There’s no such thing as a lone wolf,” it said. “There are only those people who, fed a steady diet of violent propaganda and stochastic terror, take annihilatory rhetoric to its logical conclusion.”

A Los Angeles Times op-ed declared that “The Buffalo gunman emerged from a far-right ecosystem that’s gone mainstream.”

New York Times weighed in with an article headlined: “Replacement Theory, a Fringe Belief Fueled Online, Is Refashioned by G.O.P.”

Former Bill Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart immediately shot out a tweet: “More blood on the hands of @tuckercarlson and @foxnews this killer used their racist talking points to justify killing 10 people.”

We could go on, and on, and on.

Never mind that aside from being a racist, the alleged shooter’s views were all over the map. In his “manifesto,” he says things such as “you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.”

PJ Media’s Matt Margolis read Gendron’s manifesto and points out that he “repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, ‘conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.’” He specifically attacks Fox News.

Schoolyard Cancel-Culture Bullies Come for Daniel Boone Chicago plans to change the name of my elementary school. By Joseph Epstein

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schoolyard-bullies-come-for-daniel-boone-political-correctness-chicago-virtue-history-canceling-11652713941?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

A plan is afoot to change the name of a Chicago grammar school I attended. Daniel Boone, under the reign of self-righteous political correctness, is now a problem. The old pioneer apparently kept seven slaves and took over lands belonging to (as we now say) indigenous people. (His daughter Jemima was also kidnapped by a Cherokee-Shawnee raiding party, but let that pass.) For these sins the Chicago Public Schools Office of Equity has decided Boone is a “historically egregious figure” and can’t be allowed to have a school named after him.

The question of a new name was taken up in March at what the Washington Examiner’s Abigail Adcox described as an “in-person forum for the renaming process that was exclusively for parents, guardians, staff, and community members who are ‘Black, Indigenous, [or] People of Color.’ ” The school’s neighborhood is now a mixture of East Asians and Orthodox Jews. Most of the Jewish children attend religious day schools.

I attended Boone School from ages 10 to 14. I find myself not shocked but distressed by the name change. Boone was the scene of many of the happiest days of my boyhood. I was a quarterback, a shortstop, a point guard. I danced the rhumba with Marie Goldman at my first boy-and-girl parties. I spent my summers playing ball on the school’s gravel playground. I made friends I retain more than 70 years later.

What is in it for those intent on taking down statues and changing names of institutions? A feeling of high virtue, through redressing injustices of the past by canceling its heroes. They have at their disposal a powerful weapon: the right to call anyone who disagrees a racist.

Biden’s Dance With a Latin Dictator Democrats want to help Venezuela’s Maduro sell oil, while restricting U.S. drillers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-dance-with-venezuela-sanctions-oil-supply-maduro-amlo-import-climate-change-11652641749?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Is the Biden Administration preparing to ease sanctions on Venezuela to increase the global supply of oil? The State Department denies it, but this is a potentially damaging U.S. policy shift that bears watching in Congress.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador returned from a visit to Havana this month and announced the next day that the U.S. had agreed with Caracas to buy one million barrels of Venezuelan crude daily. This would require lifting U.S. sanctions that are designed to squeeze the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro and help return the country to democracy.

A State Department official told us last week that the “current Venezuela-related sanctions remain in effect” and that “there are no changes or new agreements.” But Mr. López Obrador knows that U.S. engagement with Venezuela—and with Cuba—is a goal of many Democrats in Washington. He also knows that companies like Chevron are lobbying to ease sanctions so they can resume operating in Venezuela.

In March, Team Biden sent three representatives to Caracas to talk to Mr. Maduro. Venezuela later released two of more than a half-dozen American hostages it has been holding. The regime used the meeting to spread a propaganda message that Washington now recognizes its legitimacy. Rumors persist that back-channel talks continue.

Pressure to ease sanctions is also coming from the political left on Capitol Hill. Last week 18 Democrats wrote to President Biden, asking him to do away with sanctions they call “one of the leading causes” of Venezuelan suffering. But the real leading cause is Mr. Maduro’s socialist policies that have generated hyperinflation, poverty, corruption and widespread malnutrition and produced millions of Venezuelan refugees.

The ADL Is Undermining the Battle Against Anti-Semitism: Jonathan Tobin

https://whiterosemagazine.com/the-adl-is-undermining-the-battle-against-anti-semitism/

Are donors to the Anti-Defamation League aware of what they are funding?

Do they know that the organization created to fight prejudice and attacks against Jews is on the record supporting an ideology that grants a permission slip to anti-Semitism?

Do they know that the group still considered to be the gold standard for monitoring hate crimes is promoting the notion that Jews should be divided along racial lines—an explicit acceptance of radical theories that categorize Jews and the State of Israel as a function of “white privilege”?

Do they know that the organization committed to support Israel has, in recent years, often joined with those sniping at it and hired vicious critics of the Jewish state as staff members, like Tema Smith?

Do they know that a group that prided itself on nonpartisanship and building bipartisan coalitions against anti-Semitism has cast those principles to the winds and become part of America’s political tribal wars?

Do they know that the organization committed to support Israel has, in recent years, often joined with those sniping at it and hired vicious critics of the Jewish state as staff members?

The Demented – and Selective – Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground. Glenn Greenwald

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-demented-and-selective-game-of?utm_source=email&s=r
“The distinction between peaceful advocacy even of noxious ideas and those who engage in violence in the name of such ideas is fundamental to notions of fairness, justice and the ability to speak freely. But if you really want to claim that a public figure has “blood on their hands” every time someone murders in the name of ideas and ideologies they support, then the list of people you should be accusing of murder is a very, very long one indeed.”

At a softball field in a Washington, DC suburb on June 14, 2017, a lone gunman used a rifle to indiscriminately spray bullets at members of the House GOP who had gathered for their usual Saturday morning practice for an upcoming charity game. The then-House Majority Whip, Rep. Steven Scalise (R-LA), was shot in the hip while standing on second base and almost died, spending six weeks in the hospital and undergoing multiple surgeries. Four other people were shot, including two members of the Capitol Police who were part of Scalise’s security detail, a GOP staffer, and a Tyson Foods lobbyist. “He was hunting us at that point,” Rep. Mike Bishop (R-MI) said of the shooter, who attempted to murder as many people as he could while standing with his rifle behind the dugout.

The shooter died after engaging the police in a shootout. He was James T. Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old hard-core Democrat who — less than six months into the Trump presidency — had sought to kill GOP lawmakers based on his belief that Republicans were corrupt traitors, fascists, and Kremlin agents. The writings he left behind permitted little doubt that he was driven to kill by the relentless messaging he heard from his favorite cable host, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and other virulently anti-Trump pundits, about the evils of the GOP. Indeed, immediately after arriving at the softball field, he asked several witnesses whether the people gathered “were Republicans or Democrats.”

A CNN examination of his life revealed that “Hodgkinson’s online presence was largely defined by his politics.” In particular, “his public Facebook posts date back to 2012 and are nearly all about his support for liberal politics.” He was particularly “passionate about tax hikes on the rich and universal health care.” NBC News explained that “when he got angry about politics, it was often directed against Republicans,” and acknowledged that “Hodgkinson said his favorite TV program was ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ on MSNBC.”

Harvard Progressives Covering Up For Their Systemic Racist Friends Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-5-14-harvard-progressives-covering-up-for-their-systemic-racist-friends

It has been obvious for quite a while that pandemic-induced school closings and extended remote learning were going to have substantial negative effects on development among K-12 students. Equally obvious has been that Democrat-controlled jurisdictions — which include essentially all of the major cities with high concentrations of poor and minority students in the education system — have indulged in the longest school closures and the most remote learning. Clearly, this would lead to major negative results for the poor and minority students in these jurisdictions, particularly as compared to the students in places where schools mostly remained open for in-person learning.

A big new Report out from the Center for Educational and Policy Research at Harvard (and other institutes with similarly long names) now confirms the facts that we all knew were coming. The Report is titled “The Consequences of Remote and Hybrid Instruction During the Pandemic,” and has a date of May 2022. The lead author is Dan Goldhaber. This is a very large and well-funded study. It relies on data collected from some 2.1 million students in 10,000 schools in 49 states.

Two things about the Report stand out: (1) The large extent of the negative effects of school closures and remote learning, particularly in what the authors call “high poverty” districts, which effects are at the highest end of what anyone might have expected, and (2) The extreme lengths to which the Report goes to avoid pointing the finger of blame where it needs to be pointed, which is toward the politicians and bureaucrats — essentially all Democrats — responsible for the excessive closures in the high-poverty districts, and on the teachers unions that control the schools and back the politicians in those jurisdictions.

The May 5 issue of the Harvard Gazette contains an interview with Thomas Kane, Professor of Education and Economics at Harvard and second author of the Report, that gives an idea of the extent of the damage inflicted on poor and minority students by the school closures and remote learning.

The cruelty really is the point Why are leftists sneering at concerns over inflation?Bill Zeiser

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/cruelty-really-is-the-point-inflation/

Earlier this week, Politico ran a piece called “Inflation’s biting. Roe’s fraying. Dems are still trying to connect with voters.” The crux of the article is that while congressional Democrats have plans to counter rising inflation, they are having a hard time selling their command of the situation to voters.

It’s no wonder. The star of the piece is Representative Katie Porter. Porter, a member of her party’s progressive wing, is portrayed as more aware of the impacts of inflation than her colleagues. The story describes an instance in which Porter had to put a package of bacon back on the shelf because, to her surprise, it was up to $9.99 per pound. (The reporter helpfully informs us that as a member of Congress, Porter earns $174,000 per year, more than double the annual pay of the average American household. What hope do the rest of us have?) Other Democrats are described as less sensitive to these realities, a perception that has been borne out by the party’s internal polling.

This detachment from voters comes straight from the top. Who could forget, for example, outgoing White House press secretary (and incoming MSNBC pundit) Jen Psaki’s widely mocked suggestion that those ticked off by the way things are going should drink a margarita or attend a kickboxing class to vent their frustrations? Let them drink Cuervo! Or the knee-slapper of a boast by the administration last Fourth of July that Americans would enjoy cookout savings of 16 cents over the prior year?

But at least the Porters and Psakis of the world are trying to connect with skeptical voters. Progressive influencers? Not so much. Political activist Amy Siskind, for example, recently expressed frustration with voter perceptions of the Biden administration’s handling of the economy. “Inflation down for the first time in 8 months, and should trend down here ahead of the election. Now what will Fox News cover? Roll out the Southern border stories,” she tweeted.

LAYING SIEGE TO THE INSTITUTIONS My recent speech at Hillsdale College. Christopher Rufo

https://christopherrufo.com/laying-siege-to-the-institutions/?mc_cid=b3e343d61f&mc_eid=9bde3e8efb

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on April 5, 2022, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

Why do I say that we need to lay siege to our institutions? Because of what has happened to our institutions since the 1960s.

The 1960s saw the rise of new and radical ideologies in America that now seem commonplace—ideologies based on ideas like identity politics and cultural revolution. There is a direct line between those ideas born in the ’60s and the public policies being adopted today in leftist-run cities like Seattle, San Francisco, and Chicago.

The leftist dream of a working-class rebellion in America fizzled after the ’60s. By the mid-1970s, radical groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground had faded from prominence. But the leftist dreamers didn’t give up. Abandoning hope of a Russian-style revolution, they settled on a more sophisticated strategy—waging a revolution not of the proletariat, but of the elites, and specifically of the knowledge elites. It would proceed not by taking over the means of production, but by taking control of education and culture—a strategy that German Marxist Rudi Dutschke, a student activist in the 1960s, called “the long march through the institutions.”

An awakening: Conservatives vs. progressives By Patricia McCarthy

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/an_awakening_conservatives_vs_progressives.html

George C. Leef has written a wonderful, definitive book that lays out the difference between self-identified progressives and conservatives.  The Awakening of Jennifer Van Arsdale: A Political Fable for Our Time is a fictionalized narrative about a Washington Post journalist — a progressive leftist, of course — who is chosen to write an official biography of the first female president, Patricia Farnsworth.  The facts of this woman’s eight years in office are essentially the Obama/Biden two terms in all but name.  Their destructive policies, briefly interrupted by the successful presidency of Donald Trump, are all in play again.  The Supreme Court has been packed.  Offending statues have been duly destroyed.  Riots and protests are endemic, often staged for political purposes.  Opponents of the left have been virtually silenced.  The book feels as though it was written in just the past few weeks, so accurate are the devastating consequences of progressive policies Americans are enduring under Biden.

Van Arsdale is at first thrilled at the opportunity to write about the woman she has long considered heroic.  She has written numerous columns celebrating Farnsworth’s policies, implemented to transform America without regard for the Constitution.  Both women pride themselves on their successful gambits that have destroyed opponents and won elections.  Farnsworth even brags about having ballots ready to submit if needed.  Arsdale is selected because she is particularly skilled at constructing progressive narratives to go with any event, policy, or disaster without letting facts get in her way.  She has fully embraced the dictates of gender and identity politics.  She knows how to slant any story, how to obscure inconvenient facts in order to make any column suitably progressive.  As a lover of classical music, she attends concerts in disguise because, among her friends and colleagues, classical music is “problematic” since most composers were white.  She would have heartily supported the We See You White American Theater manifesto.  Shakespeare is also “problematic.”

Rescuing Socrates By John J. Miller

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/05/30/rescuing-socrates/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

Roosevelt Montás, defender of the Western canon

New York City

‘I knew I was going to drop a grenade in the meeting,” says Roosevelt Montás, with a smile, during a conversation in his office in Hamilton Hall at Columbia University on April 7. He’s referring to an address he gave four years ago in Aspen, Colo., to a gathering of presidents and provosts from colleges and universities. He delivered a message that they probably didn’t want to hear.

“Our students often seem ill informed about the implications of their own political positions and are drawn, unthinkingly, into illiberal and bigoted stances,” said Montás in Aspen. “Our undergraduate curricula have not been educating our students for the life of free citizenship.” He excoriated his audience of left-leaning academics for their abandonment of the old-fashioned liberal arts.

Montás made his remarks behind closed doors. (He prepared a text, but apparently there’s no recording.) Word of his performance nevertheless spread. Eventually he came to the attention of a top editor at Princeton University Press. “I kept hearing his name,” says Peter Dougherty, now editor at large there.

The two men met for lunch at the Oyster Bar in Grand Central Terminal, where they hatched a plan for Montás to write about his beliefs in a book that is one part autobiography and one part polemic — and whose recent publication marks the rise of a powerful and unexpected voice on behalf of liberal-arts learning. At a time when many of the loudest voices in higher education condemn everything traditional as a manifestation of systemic racism and regard the canon of great books as the polluted products of dead white men, Montás offers a simple but disarming counterclaim: “I’m not the face of white supremacy.”