Displaying posts published in

September 2019

Woke History Is Making Big Inroads in America’s High Schools By John Murawski

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/09/17/woke_history_is_making_big_inroads_in_americas_high_schools_120363.html

Like growing numbers of public high school students across the country, many California kids are receiving classroom instruction in how race, class, gender, sexuality and citizenship status are tools of oppression, power and privilege. They are taught about colonialism, state violence, racism, intergenerational trauma, heteropatriarchy and the common thread that links them: “whiteness.” Students are then graded on how well they apply these concepts in writing assignments, performances and community organizing projects.

At Santa Monica High School, for example, students organize and carry out “a systematized campaign” for social justice that can take the form of a protest, a leaflet, a workshop, play or research project. They demonstrate their mastery of the subject matter by teaching about social justice to middle school students.

 
“Breakup letters” with oppression: Classwork at Environmental Charter High School in Lawndale, Calif.
YouTube/echslawndale.org/videos/ 

Students at Environmental Charter High School in Lawndale are assigned to write a “breakup letter with a form of oppression,” such as toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, Eurocentric curriculum or the Dakota Access Pipeline. Students are asked to “persuade their audience of the dehumanizing and damaging effects of their chosen topic.” 

Students at schools in Anaheim, San Jose, Oakland, and San Francisco are taught how to write a manifesto to school administrators listing “demands” for reforms. Some conduct a grand jury investigation to determine who was responsible for the genocide of the state’s Native Americans. And one class holds a mock trial to determine which party is most responsible for the deaths of millions of native Tainos: Christopher Columbus, the soldiers, the king and queen of Spain, or the entire European system of colonialism.

Democrats’ Impeachment Theater: Corey Lewandowski and Executive Privilege By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/democrats-impeachment-theater-corey-lew

How you come out on the question about the scope of obstruction should determine how you come out on the question of executive privilege.

President Trump’s former campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski is scheduled to testify this afternoon before the House Judiciary Committee. The White House is not objecting to his appearance but has reportedly instructed him not to answer questions about his communications with the president. (See the letter of White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler.) This raises an interesting question: May the president assert executive privilege to shield disclosure of his communications with people who are not part of the White House staff and the broader executive branch?

Lewandowski was not a government official in June and July 2017, when, according the Mueller Report, the president instructed him to convey a directive to then–attorney general Jeff Sessions. The directive was for Sessions to narrow his recusal from the Russia investigation so that he could limit then–special counsel Robert Mueller’s jurisdiction — such that Mueller could investigate only to prevent Russian meddling in future elections. That is, Mueller would end his probe of Kremlin interference in the 2016 campaign, on the rationale that Trump had done nothing wrong. Sessions was to add that he had been with Trump for nine months on the campaign and therefore knew that “there were no Russians involved with him.”

The last claim was an overstatement. We now know that the Trump organization was involved in negotiations for Trump Tower Moscow throughout the 2016 campaign. Moreover, while there is no evidence that candidate Trump himself was informed about the matter, his top campaign officials (his son Don Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his then–campaign manager Paul Manafort) met in June 2016 with a lawyer they understood to be a Kremlin emissary (Natalia Veselnitskaya, with an entourage of Russians in tow) in the expectation (unfulfilled) of receiving campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton. (Ironically, as I further detail in Ball of Collusion, Veselnitskaya obtained the materials she presented from Fusion GPS, the same outfit that was working for Clinton to scrounge up campaign dirt on Donald Trump from Russian sources.)

My purpose here, though, is to focus not on questions about the president’s credibility, which congressional Democrats have every right to highlight. Let’s stick with executive privilege.

Don’t Dismiss Trump’s U.S.-Israel Pact Tweet As A ‘Political Stunt’ By Erielle Davidson

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/dont-dismiss-trumps-u-s-israel-pact-tweet-as-a-political-stunt/

Given the complexity and intensity of the existing U.S.-Israel alliance, it seems unlikely that a pact of this nature would alter the dynamic tremendously. It may, however, alter the behavior of Israel’s neighbors.

This past weekend, President Trump tweeted that he would be open to a mutual defense pact that would “further anchor the tremendous alliance” between the United States and Israel. In the series of tweets, Trump mentions both that he discussed the potential arrangement with current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he “look[s] forward” to continuing the discussions after the Israeli elections.

The mention of the mutual defense pact just days before the Israeli elections has created a stir in what Trump critics declare to be interference in Israeli politics. However, this assumption, although convenient, is incorrect. Trump may have announced his interest in the pact prior to the Israeli elections, but this policy idea was not birthed impulsively.

The idea for a pact has been floating around Washington for several months. The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) released a report and draft of the potential pact for consumption on the Hill months ago. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took a particular interest in JINSA’s proposal, noting his adamant support for a mutual defense pact in a July 30 conference call with the organization.

Dictator Robert Mugabe Is What Happens When A Country Falls For A Charismatic Socialist Mugabe wasn’t the only charismatic socialist who ruined a country and the lives of millions. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time. By Helen Raleigh

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/dictator-robert-mugabe-is-what-happens-when-a-country-falls-for-charismatic-socialist/

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s dictator and lifelong communist, died on Sept. 6, 2019, at the age of 95. In a country where the average life expectancy was only 44 years (according to a 2006 census), he outlived most of his countrymen.

However, his protracted and long life was constructed upon inflicting enormous and unimaginable suffering upon his people and country. For the rest of us, his incumbency should serve as a constant warning about why we should not fall for the next charismatic socialist who heedlessly promises everything.

Mugabe’s Life Before His Dictatorship

Mugabe was born into poverty. Abandoned by his father at age 10, he attended a Jesuit missionary school and eventually graduated from the University of Fort Hare in South Africa, the same university Nelson Mandela attended.

While Mugabe was receiving educator training in Ghana in the 1950s, he joined one of Africa’s nationalist movements, calling for the establishment of an independent country led by the black majority in his homeland, which at the time was still a British colony. The emergence of these nationalist movements coincided with the Cold War. The Soviet Union and Communist China expanded their influence in Africa, hoping to turn former colonies into client states.

Mugabe was imprisoned for a decade due to his anti-government political activities, and while in prison, he was elected as the president of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU). During his long imprisonment, Mugabe thoroughly studied Marxist-Leninist ideology. He became a firm believer that only socialism could save his homeland, and that only his ZANU could lead the people’s revolution and bring true socialism to Zimbabwe. Therefore, ZANU must “always remain in power” and remain the only power.

Mugabe also came to see private property owners, such as the white farmers, as a threat to the socialist paradise he wanted to build. Upon his release, Mugabe led the ZANU guerrillas to fight against the white minority rule from Mozambique. Somehow, between prison and guerrilla warfare, he managed to obtain seven college degrees and was commended as an intellectual freedom fighter.

Hillary Clinton: ‘Stacey Abrams Should Be Governor’ of Georgia By Jim Treacher

https://pjmedia.com/trending/hillary-clinton-stacey-abrams-should-be-governor-of-georgia/

Back in October 2016, when everybody was telling us that Hillary Clinton couldn’t lose, Donald Trump said: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win.” And the Democrats all lost their minds. How un-American! What an outrage!

In response to Trump’s quip, Clinton gravely intoned: “Donald Trump refused to say that he’d respect the results of this election.That’s a direct threat to our democracy.”

But a funny thing happens when a politician experiences the most crushing electoral loss in living memory: All that $#!+ goes right out the window. Respecting the results of an election is no longer required, and rejecting the results is no longer a threat to our democracy. Forget all about that crap, because there’s a new party line.

Here’s Hilldog today, giving the keynote address at something called In Defense of American Democracy. Apparently, defending democracy now involves directly threatening it:

“We saw what happened in Georgia where Stacey Abrams should be governor of that state”

CNN: Everything but the News Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/cnn-trump-derangement-everything-but-news/

Trump derangement, all the time: lies, smears, threats, and profanity. Viewers are noticing — and leaving.

For a while, we thought MSNBC had temporarily usurped CNN as the font of fake news — although both networks had tied for the most negative coverage (93 percent of all their news reports) of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.

A cynic would argue that CNN had deliberately given Trump undue coverage during the Republican primary on the theory that he would be the weakest Republican in the general election and would therefore be the weakest challenger to Hillary Clinton. CNN president Jeffrey Zucker at one point had bragged that in the primaries, Trump made CNN money. Only later, after Trump’s nomination, did Zucker regret giving so much airtime to Trump and his boisterous rallies.

“If we made any mistake last year, it’s that we probably did put too many of his campaign rallies in those early months and let them run,” the contrite Zucker conceded in October 2016, at a talk at Harvard’s Kennedy School. Yet Zucker admitted that Trump had been a “publicity magnet” as a primary candidate, and, more important, “Trump delivered on PR; he delivered on big ratings.”

So CNN’s Zucker gave copious coverage to Apprentice-star Trump both to win ratings and to ensure the nomination of a candidate who was polling anemically against Hillary Clinton — with the intention of then reversing course and destroying Trump in the general election.

The ratings gambit worked; the second aim, of aiding a Clinton victory, did not. And now CNN is focused on another strategy: to destroy the perceived Frankenstein monster that Dr. Zucker helped to create.

Just recently, MSNBC anchor Lawrence O’Donnell broke a story based on a single unnamed sourcewho said that Deutsche Bank documents (which the source had not seen) would soon prove that Russian oligarchs had co-signed a loan application for Donald Trump — O’Donnell was apparently trying to resurrect the Russian-collusion zombie. The story was discredited within 24 hours by denials from the bank — as O’Donnell did his part to destroy what was left of the credibility of progressive cable news.

When Politics Smothers Everyday Life–and Squeezes out Humor Charles Lipson

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/17/when_politics_smothers_everyd

Partisan politics has crept into every corner of American life. Every topic, from jokes to films, is now refracted through that lens. It’s a revoltin’ development, as one sitcom character used to say, and it’s time to call it out.

Most issues do have a political dimension, of course. But seeing everything that way leaves no space for other topics, no room for play or humor or friends with different views. It intrudes on the private world of family, friends, and voluntary associations. People need that space to flourish. A tolerant, liberal democracy should provide it.

I saw this suffocating environment up-close and personal this week when I posted a funny comment by Louisiana’s Sen. John Kennedy. His earthy metaphors and odd juxtapositions make him one of Washington’s most quotable figures. In today’s hyper-divisive politics, however, even the most innocuous quote can land you in the briar patch. I felt a few of those thorns when I posted his comment.

What did Sen. Kennedy say? “Trusting Russia, North Korea, and Iran is like trusting a Jussie Smollett police report.” What’s wrong with that? Not a thing. It’s funny, fair, and memorable. But when everything is partisan, you can always find something wrong. If nothing comes readily to mind, blame the speaker for something else. He’s from the wrong political party. He supports the wrong policies. He’s the wrong race. He’s the wrong gender. This sour perspective, says Sen. Kennedy, is “why aliens won’t talk to us.”

In case that line had you furiously logging onto Twitter, he meant extraterrestrials, not migrants. I’m with the ETs and spaceships on this one. So are most Americans. I’m not trying to click my heels three times and make partisan differences magically disappear. Our country faces big, difficult issues. The partisan divide often has roots in real policy differences.

ILHAN OMAR, FBI SPY IN TRUMP ORGANIZATION

https://dailypoliticalnewswire.com/ilhan-omar-america-wont-be-the-country-of-white-people/?

Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is blaming President Trump and white people for the recent synagogue shootings.

“This is not going to be the country of white people,” she ranted during a rally in D.C. on Tuesday, “At this moment, the occupant of the White House and his allies are doing everything that they can to distance themselves and misinform the public from the monsters that they created that is [sic] terrorizing the Jewish community and the Muslim community.”

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/17/there-was-a-spy-inside-the-trump-organization-working-for-the-fbi-and-judicial-watch-just-sued-to-find-out-more-n2553166

There Was an FBI Spy Inside the Trump Organization and Judicial Watch Just Sued to Find Out More Katie Pavlich

Government watchdog Judicial Watch has issued a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Justice in order to obtain documents and information about Felix Sater. Sater was working inside the Trump Organization in 2016 on behalf of the FBI and reportedly pushed the Trump Moscow project. That Moscow project was often cited as “proof” by Democrats and media that President Trump had business dealings with the Russians..

AREA C: ‘OCCUPATION’ OR ANNEXATION BY MOSHE DANN

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Area-C-Occupation-or-annexation-601907

The failure to resolve the conflict between Israel and Arab Palestinians has left the government with only two options regarding the “military occupation” of Judea and Samaria’s (the “West Bank”) Area C: either continue the current military administration of the area by the IDF/COGAT (Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories), the sovereign power in the area, or extend Israeli sovereignty there – annexation. This reality is not only a political issue; it affects Israel’s economy and its survival. It is, above all, a humanitarian issue.

Continuing to build and extend Jewish communities (“settlements”) in Area C without clearly defining to whom the area belongs does not avoid condemnations of Israel by the international community, but rather invites criticism. 
Moreover, as long as the government is ambiguous about the status of Area C, it defies reality and jeopardizes the future of these communities. If Israel does not claim ownership of Area C and extend sovereignty over it, the logical conclusion is that it is part of “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (OPT).TIn addition, this ambiguity, encourages those who propose that Area C – including its settlements – be taken over by the Palestinian Authority (PA), along with eastern Jerusalem, thereby moving Israel’s boundaries back to the 1949 armistice lines and establishing a second (or perhaps third in Gaza) sovereign Palestinian state. Not only would this be a strategic security disaster and imperil Jews living there, but it will also have serious political and economic ramifications.

UK: The Push to End Free Speech by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14329/britain-criticism-of-islam

“We are concerned that the definition… could be used to challenge legitimate free speech on the historical or theological actions of Islamic states. There is also a risk it could also undermine counter-terrorism powers, which seek to tackle extremism or prevent terrorism.” — Martin Hewitt, Chair, National Police Chiefs’ Council.

Islam represents an idea, not a nationality or an ethnicity. The conventional purpose of most hate-speech laws is to protect people from hatred, not ideas.

The new proposed definition would criminalize criticism of Islam. Considering the origins of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, that is probably the whole point.

“[A]n alternative definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred should be specific and narrow. It should focus on addressing bigotry directed at individuals, and avoid censoring debate or freedom of expression on religion. Finally, a comprehensive definition of Anti-Muslim Hatred must take intra-Muslim hatred into account to protect those who want to speak freely or express themselves differently.” — Nikita Malik, Forbes, May 20, 2019.

In April 2018, Britain’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims began work on establishing a “working definition of Islamophobia that can be widely accepted by Muslims, political parties and the government”.

In December 2018, the group concluded its work with a “Report on the inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia / anti-Muslim hatred.” The report defines “Islamophobia” as a form of racism, conflating religion with ethnic origin or nationality: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”[1]

The report, furthermore, claims that a definition of Islamophobia is “instrumental” to “the political will and institutional determination to tackle it.”