Displaying the most recent of 56453 posts written by

Ruth King

U.N. Ignores Atrocities in Syria and Yemen yet Calls for Investigation of Israeli Defensive Measures Against Hamas at Gaza Border See note please

Note: 1) There are 22 Muslim countries and only ONE Jewish state. 2) Arab Muslims started all FIVE wars against Israel and lost every one of them. 3) Both the Fatah and Hamas Constitutions call for the destruction of Israel. 4) Israel ceded most of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority.

Janet Levy,Los Angeles

U.N. Ignores Chemical Attack on Syrian Civilians

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Defense-minister-Israel-will-likely-have-to-go-it-alone-on-Syria-549149

Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Liberman said, “Over the weekend, 48 innocent people were killed in Syria, including 8 children and 6 women.”

“I have not heard the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres speak [of the chemical attack]. We have not seen the UN Security Council and the Arab League convene,” Liberman said.

“Over this weekend hundreds were also killed in Yemen, but that doesn’t interest anyone,” he said, adding that when Israel kills Palestinians in self-defense there is an immediate outcry.

On Friday, Israeli soldiers repelled an assault on its border fence with Gaza, killing nine Palestinians who had participated in the “Great March of Return,” a massive protest along the barrier’s route. Participants in the six-week event that began on March 30 hope to enter Israel by breaking down the fence.

Since the beginning of the march, the IDF has killed 31 Palestinians on the Gaza border, most of which the IDF says were Hamas operatives, while the Palestinians argue that they were peaceful protesters.

Israel Blamed for Missile Strike on Syrian Air Base By Jack Crowe

Russian officials claim the Israeli Air Force is responsible for a missile strike on a Syrian airbase carried out early Monday, just two days after the Assad regime killed 42 civilians in a chemical gas attack that sparked international outrage.

The Russian Defense Ministry told state media that two Israeli F-15 fighter jets fired eight guided missiles at the Tiyas base from Lebanese airspace, while pro-Assad Syrian media reported 20 missiles were fired. Israeli officials refused to comment the strike, which killed 14 military personnel, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Israel previously attacked Tiyas, known as the T-4 base, in February on grounds that an Iranian drone that encroached on Israeli airspace originated there.

he strike on the Tiyas airbase comes in the wake of an alleged chemical gas attack perpetrated by the Assad-regime against civilians in a Rebel-held Damscus suburb late Saturday.

President Donald Trump said the Assad regime would pay “a big price” for the violation of international law and condemned Iran and Russia for facilitating the atrocity through their continued support for government forces.

Subversion in the Garb of Social Justice By Sumantra Maitra

Lola Olufemi was bitter that she had been targeted. Led by Olufemi, an officer in the Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU), a group of activist students had started a petition to “decolonize” the university’s English curriculum, inspired by “support” from the Marxist, post-colonial academic Dr. Priyamvada Gopal. When the Telegraph published Olufemi’s photo on its front page, she and the “decolonize English” campaign met with strong online backlash, and she accused the paper of a “very targeted form of harassment.”

If you’re unaware of this latest row, you’re not alone; it is easy to lose track of individual battles in the unending war on classical education. The death by a thousand cuts of Western academia started with the Rhodes Must Fall campaign at Oxford, fomented by someone who was himself a Rhodes Scholar. The rot has now spread to Cambridge, where over 30 departments are being targeted by students and a certain section of academic commissars who have taken it upon themselves to determine whether courses are too dominated by white, male, Euro-centric perspectives.

Britain usually follows the U.S. in its experience of such unwelcome post-modern phenomena. The Cambridge fiasco naturally comes after Stanford and Yale caved in to student and academic pressure for “decolonization.” At Yale, 160 students petitioned against teaching Shakespeare in an English class. The petition read, in part, “The Major English Poets sequences creates a culture that is especially hostile to students of color. When students are made to feel so alienated that they get up and leave the room, or get up and leave the major, something is wrong.” At Stanford, a petition to reinstate Western History as a course met with student protests last year. Needless to say, the craven professors of these august institutions put up little resistance to their students’ extreme demands.

Putting aside the baffling absurdity of students attempting to decide what is supposed to be taught to them, let’s consider a few aspects of these spats. We’re talking about Stanford, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge here, not Oberlin or Evergreen State College. The future of the West is shaped in these elite schools. That they, as institutions, refused to fight back with any vigor against those waging war on classical Western education means something, or should. The complete destruction of a pedagogical regime that has served the world admirably for centuries is currently underway in the Western academy, and those best positioned to do something about it are sitting on their hands. This is alarming, to put it mildly.

In London, Homicides Spike, and Politicians Do a U-Turn on Stop-and-Search By Douglas Murray

During the past week, Londoners have woken to the fact that for the first time in living memory the homicide rate in their capital city has overtaken that of New York. There were 15 homicides in London in February, compared with 14 in New York. In March, there were 22 in London, 21 in New York. In recent weeks in London there has been at least one gang-related stabbing almost every day: often fatal, sometimes not. At least 35 deaths since the start of this year have been gang-related. Doctors talk of the emergency wards in parts of London in the evenings resembling a warzone. Just one of the oddities is that most Londoners remain untouched by this. As Harry Mount wrote at The Spectator last month, it is perfectly possible for a killing to be going on near a smart north-London dinner party.

Nevertheless, given that, among Brits, New York still has a reputation for violence, the comparison has struck a nerve. Apart from focusing the national mind, it has also fired up one of the most subterranean and troubling calculations any political class has to make. How many lives are you willing to sacrifice in pursuit of a political position?

In recent years the subject of stop-and-search has been an exceptionally emotive one in the U.K., as it is in America. Because it was deemed to target young black men disproportionately, police and politicians alike found stop-and-search to be a useful tool — not for targeting those people who were thought most likely to be carrying weapons but for parading their own political virtues by objecting to the practice.

Comey the Celebrity By Jim Geraghty

Some former agents, once defenders of the ousted FBI director, aren’t fans of his current high-profile persona.

When President Trump suddenly fired FBI director James Comey in May 2017, quite a few retired bureau officials eagerly defended Comey’s record as director, and denounced Trump’s abrupt, seemingly self-serving decision. But some of those same retired FBI agents are now turned off by the pugnacious, high-profile persona of the former director as he prepares to launch the book tour for his autobiography, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership.

In 25 years at the FBI, James Gagliano handled a wide variety of duties — criminal investigator, undercover agent, supervisory special agent, SWAT team leader, member of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, acting legal attaché at the U.S. embassy in Mexico City, and head of a bureau satellite office. He’s currently an adjunct assistant professor at St. John’s University and a CNN contributor. Back in June 2017, when Comey was preparing to testify before the Senate, Gagliano said, “Nobody’s going to question Comey’s honor and his character” and said he was “disgusted” with the way that Trump treated the former director.

Now, Gagliano says he was once a “mild fan” of Comey, but has been unhappy with the former director’s decision to venture into the public eye, writing a tell-all book and promoting it on a highly visible press tour.

“This current effort to meet the president in the public square, at his own game of slinging mud and punching and contributing smugness to the debate, it’s a bad look for him,” Gagliano says. “I think it’s going to diminish the FBI, and I think it’s going to diminish whatever’s left of Comey’s reputation.”

Former special agent Bobby Chacon, who now works in Hollywood as a technical advisor and story consultant, has had a similar change of heart. Back when President Trump didn’t even tell Comey that he was fired in person or by phone, Chacon bristled. “Nobody deserves to be treated like that,” he told the Guardian. But since then, he has come to concur that Comey is burning through the goodwill he accumulated over the course of his career in the bureau.

“I liked him when I worked at the bureau, although who the director was never really impacted my day-to-day life in the bureau too much,” Chacon says now, adding that he began to develop some concerns about Comey beginning with the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. He wondered why a grand jury wasn’t empaneled in that investigation, a move that he contends would have somewhat insulated the bureau from political controversy by leaving the decision to indict or not indict in others’ hands.

School Finds Sex Assault Accuser Not Credible, Still Suspends Accused Student The male student is now suing Syracuse University for gender bias and for failing to provide him due process rights. By Ashe Schow

The Board found Jane’s claim that the oral sex wasn’t consensual to be untrue, writing in their decisions that Jane “demonstrated consent through her actions.” The Board could also not determine that anal sex occurred (John says the two did not have anal sex). So even though two-thirds of Jane’s claims were found not credible, they still bought her third claim that she initially consented to vaginal intercourse but withdrew her consent at some point during the act.

The Board claimed that Jane’s “actions throughout the process are consistent with a traumatic event such as she described in her statement,” except they found most of her statement to be not credible, and the only traumatic event she allegedly went through was withdrawing sex after she initiated and consented to that sex (again, a story that she changed during the investigation).

John’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg of Nesenoff & Miltenberg, told the Federalist that there’s only one explanation for how his client could be indefinitely suspended even with facts like these.

“Having litigated on behalf of dozens of accused males on college campuses throughout the country, and represented dozens of others in campus proceedings, I’m especially struck by the complete absurdity of the Title IX process at Syracuse,” Miltenberg said. “There is no credible explanation for the Conduct Board to dismiss two claims but uphold a third — other than a presumption of guilt that was made at the outset of this investigation.”

John is suing Syracuse for Title IX and due process violations, as well as breach of contract.
Ashe Schow is a senior contributor to the Federalist and senior political columnist for the New York Observer. She also contributes to a weekly segment on the Enough Already podcast. She has previously worked for Watchdog.org, the Washington Examiner and the Heritage Foundation.

5 Big, Fat Lies Free Speech Opponents Love Free speech is under sustained attack in our country. Here are five lies the attackers use to undermine our most basic freedom.By David Marcus

The concept of free speech, so central to the American experience, is facing a trial in our society. This is not the first time, and surely won’t be the last, in which competing interests wrestle to define the term.

But it is our time to debate it, and those who would trammel speech in the name of justice, or patriotism, or anything really, are relying on several very flawed premises in their attempts to silence their fellow citizens. It’s time to tackle them, one by one, and establish a positive argument for free speech that recognizes it is a blessing, not a burden.

Much of the confusion regarding the idea of free speech stems from a fundamental misunderstanding that somehow the First Amendment of the Constitution invented and constrains the idea. This is hogwash.

In 399 BC, Socrates was tried, convicted, and executed for violating speech codes. For more than 2,000 years since then, Western culture has played a game of tetherball over speech, sending it this way and that. But the heart of the issue has nothing to do with government. It has to do with whether we, as individuals, value tolerance for perspectives we disagree with.

In the past decade or so, many people — usually but not always those on the Left — have distorted the concept of free speech in an effort to suppress it. Their arguments are not deep; they are not even shallow. It is useful, however, to look at and dismantle them so we are not tempted to snatch from ourselves the rights generations past established for us.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Isn’t the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer By Jim Treacher

Recently, London’s murder rate caught up with New York City’s. Which is weird, because there shouldn’t be any murders in either city. After all, both NYC and the UK have very strict gun laws. As we’ve learned from our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left, banning guns leads to fewer gun crimes. (That’s why the Secret Service doesn’t carry them!) So how is this happening? How can such a gun-free utopia be so dangerous? The answer will terrify you: scary, evil KNIVES.

Jason Douglas, WSJ:

A series of stabbings has put the number of murders in London this year on a par with New York, with police and lawmakers blaming the surge on drugs and gang-related violence…

Police said Friday there have been 53 murders in the British capital in the year through April 5, 16 more than the number recorded during the first four months of 2017…

A spokeswoman for the U.K. Home Office said the government is taking action to restrict young people’s access to knives and other offensive weapons, such as banning online stores from delivering knives to homes.

This is serious, people. Common-sense gun control has been such a huge success that now it’s time for the next step: common-sense knife control.

This is bad news for Jack the Ripper.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s knife-confiscation effort even has its own website, with a corresponding hashtag:

#Knifefree, eh? Let’s hope Londoners don’t think this means they’re getting bladed weapons without charge.

No offense to Mayor Khan, but I can think of a few good reasons to have a knife. It can come in handy when you need to:

Cut up a piece of food
Open a box
Perform an emergency tracheotomy
Spread some nice cream cheese on a bagel
Live in a crime-infested $#!+hole like London

If knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives.

Banning weapons has never made people safer, and it never will. Criminals don’t follow laws in the first place — that’s why they’re called criminals! — and law-abiding people are just rendered defenseless against attackers. If you ban guns, people will use knives. Or clubs. Or jars of acid. Or whatever else they can get their hands on. Hell, now we know that terrorists and white supremacists will even drive cars and trucks into crowds of people, if that’s what it takes. Bad people are always going to find ways to hurt and kill others. And they’re always going to prey on those they believe to be defenseless. CONTINUE AT SITE

Nervous Mark Zuckerberg, Under Heavy Security, Arrives on Capitol Hill By Paula Bolyard

A nervous-looking Mark Zuckerberg, under heavy security, arrived on Capitol Hill Monday ahead of his planned testimony at a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

The Facebook CEO met with lawmakers, including Democratic Senators Bill Nelson and Dianne Feinstein, on Monday to discuss the company’s recent security breaches and to explain how the company plans to protect users going forward. In his written testimony, released ahead of his appearances before Congress, Zuckerberg took full responsibility for Facebook’s failures and vowed to do better in the future.

“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy,” Zuckerberg said in the prepared remarks. “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.”

In his remarks, Zuckerberg tallied up the known damages thus far—and the numbers are astounding:

In 2013, a Cambridge University researcher named Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz app. It was installed by around 300,000 people who agreed to share some of their Facebook information as well as some information from their friends whose privacy settings allowed it. Given the way our platform worked at the time this meant Kogan was able to access some information about tens of millions of their friends.
Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served content from a Facebook Page associated with the [Russia-based] IRA [Internet Research Agency] at some point during that period. On Instagram, where our data on reach is not as complete, we found about 120,000 pieces of content, and estimate that an additional 20 million people were likely served it.
Over the same period, the IRA also spent approximately $100,000 on more than 3,000 ads on Facebook and Instagram, which were seen by an estimated 11 million people.
Echoing what COO Sheryl Sandberg told “Today” last week, Zuckerberg said there may be more breaches discovered in the weeks and months to come as the company continues its investigation. “We’re in the process of investigating every app that had access to a large amount of information before we locked down our platform in 2014,” he wrote. “If we detect suspicious activity, we’ll do a full forensic audit. And if we find that someone is improperly using data, we’ll ban them and tell everyone affected.”CONTINUE AT SITE

The Limits of American Patience By Victor Davis Hanson

Not being willing any longer to be manipulated is not succumbing to isolationism. Wondering whether the United States can afford another liability is not mindless nationalism. Questioning whether America can afford the status quo here and abroad is not heresy. Assuming we can borrow our way out of any inconvenience is largely over.

What helped elect Trump was a collective weariness with demands put on a country $20 trillion in debt. America is currently running a $57 billion a month trade deficit.

The poverty of inner-city Detroit, or rural Central California, or West Virginia does not suggest an endlessly opulent nation, at least as a visitor might conclude from visiting Manhattan, Chevy Chase, or Presidio Heights.

NATO was designed to protect Western Europeans from Soviet expansionism and to allay fears of traditional Russian nationalism. It transmogrified into a vital Western alliance that might use collective deterrence and action to preserve shared democratic values.

But if a distant United States is to continue anchoring such a key defensive league, then surely its front-line member states of a prosperous Europe must meet or exceed their own freely agreed upon levels of defense spending.

Instead, until recently, most did not.

The unspoken premise for such nullification was that the United States needs NATO more than the NATO states in Europe need the United States. Or given that America is so big and powerful a patron, surely it could always afford to subsidize an errant client.

Mexico assumed that a rich neighbor could, in perpetuity, serve as a refuge of last resort for its impoverished citizens, thereby providing a safety valve and precluding any need for its own internal reform.

The United States was supposedly so affluent that it could both offer entitlements to illegal aliens and, given such aid, not care whether many of them sent $60 billion back home (what is a mere $60 billion out of a multi-trillion dollar economy?) to Central American and Mexico.

When occasionally the United States recoiled a bit, Mexico could always accuse an essentially open-border America of being restrictionist and xenophobic. One wonders how exactly would Mexico’s hostility be expressed—by vows not to receive remittances, or to demand repatriation of its lost citizens, or unilaterally to leave NAFTA, or to elect a nationalist president who would build a wall?