Displaying the most recent of 89832 posts written by

Ruth King

Job Openings Started Outstripping Job Seekers in March By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/economy-jobs-report-more-openings-than-seekers/

The U.S. economy reached a record 6.7 million job openings in April, the Department of Labor stated Tuesday, hundreds of thousands more than the number of unemployed workers.

March and April both saw the number of job openings outstrip the number of unemployed workers.

There were 6.7 million job openings in April and only 6.35 million job seekers. The previous month saw 6.63 million job openings, more than the 6.59 million unemployed workers.

The number of openings has never been higher than the number of job seekers since the government started counting employment opportunities in 2000.

May saw 223,000 jobs added to the U.S. economy.

Elites Value Mellifluous Illegality over Crass Lawfulness By Victor Davis Hanson

Obama defies the Constitution but sounds ‘presidential.’ Trump follows it but sounds like a loudmouth from Queens.

Donald Trump blusters nonstop. He offers contrasting messages about whether, on any given day, he might fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. His tweets are certainly not presidential, at least as the adjective is usually understood.

At perpetual campaign rallies, Trump mocks his critics, caricaturing their voices and slamming them with adolescent epithets like “Cryin’ Chuckie Schumer.” He accuses House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of being an enabler of M-13 gang members after she chastised him for calling such psychopaths “animals.” Trump has defined his own uncouthness, which so incenses his opponents, as “the new presidential.”

Yet so far, after over a year of intense investigation, Special Counsel Mueller has found no evidence that Donald Trump — or even his low-level subordinates — had ever colluded with Russian government interests to hijack the 2016 election and defeat Hillary Clinton. Indeed, Mueller has shown himself desperate to indict almost anyone connected with the Trump campaign with almost any charge he can think of — other than colluding with the Russians to warp an election, his original mandate.

Call the Trump paradox “crass lawfulness.” What drives Trump’s critics nearly crazy is not any evidence that Trump has broken federal laws per se. Instead, their rub is that there are somehow no criminal statutes against a president boorishly acting “unpresidential” in his loud quest to supercharge the economy, while undoing the entire agenda of his predecessor, who was so dearly beloved by the media, universities, Hollywood, and identity-politics groups.

Certainly, President Obama’s teleprompted speeches were mellifluous. As some sort of postmodern preacher, Obama often sermonized to Americans about the predetermined “arc of history” that purportedly bent all of us inescapably toward his own just moral version of the universe.

Masterpiece Cakeshop Is a Setback for Liberty By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/masterpiece-cakeshop-setback-liberty/

This was a straightforward free-expression case, and the Court could have resolved the dispute in favor of liberty.

I must respectfully disagree with the editors regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Professor Steve Vladek is right: The decision is “remarkably narrow.” One cannot help but be struck by the majority’s reticence from the outset: “Whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause.” Mind you, this is from the pen of Anthony Kennedy, a judicial supremacist who ordinarily interrupts his liberty bender only to scold the People — formerly known as the sovereign — to pipe down and quit grousing once the Robed Nine have spoken.

On this one, though, Justice Kennedy assures the Left it can grouse away. This ruling, in grudging accommodation of religious conviction, will not necessarily bear on the outcome “of some future controversy involving facts similar to these.”

To be sure, I am all for a Lincolnian construction that reduces Supreme Court rulings to a duly narrow resolution of the dispute between the litigating parties, leaving it to the republic to govern itself accountably. But that is not what’s going on here. This case is a one-off. The justices, manifestly pained, side ever so ambiguously with religious liberty, a founding principle of the nation, over gay marriage, a trendy progressive cause that would not remotely have been threatened in Colorado had Jack Phillips been left in peace to honor his convictions.

Kennedy’s sweet-mystery-of-life jurisprudence is all about exploring the exotic contours of liberty to discover heretofore unknown substantive safeguards. Not in this case, though. Confronted by a liberty twofer — an attack on free-expression rights that also burdens religious liberty — the justices punt on substantive protections for traditional religious exercise and speech (the latter liberty that could and should have decided the case in Mr. Phillips’s favor); they agitate, instead, over procedural flaws in the state’s adjudication of the conscience question.

THE SHARIA COMPLIANT PRIME MINISTER -EDWARD CLINE

https://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/

I sent this query to Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, London, a few days ago:

Is Theresa May a closet Muslim? Is she okay with female genital mutilation? Honor killings or murders? The rapes of white British women and girls? Is she okay with Hamas? Hezbollah? Censorship? With not giving Islam the raspberries? Not calling Islam totalitarian and evil? Would she have recommended to Hitler that members of The White Rose be executed? Or that Tommy Robinson be murdered by Muslim prisoners?

From all the evidence of the imposition of speech controls on Britain imposed by May, impositions punishable with arrest and imprisonment if the controls are violated, one can only make an educated guess that she is a closet Muslim. Sharia law is in the cards.

Recently, in the middle of last month, May answered a question in Parliament about freedom of speech as a “cherished” British liberty by qualifying her alleged value of it by stressing the role of “tolerance” as a kind of twin that puts a necessary gag the freedom. The implied object of the question was why criticism of Christianity was taken as a norm, but criticism of Islam was not.

May answered:

“We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country. That is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy. But we also value tolerance to others. We also value tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues that we’ve looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the government has produced. I think we need to ensure that, yes, it is right that people can have that freedom of expression. But in doing so, that right has a responsibility, too. And that is a responsibility to recognize the importance of tolerance to others.”

Tolerance? Of what? Tolerance of Islam, to May, must mean not criticizing it or any of its primitive, medieval, and patently misogynic practices, such as FGM and rape at whim and by Koranic right. Throwin

MARILYN PENN: A MODEST PROPOSAL

http://politicalmavens.com/

In keeping with the logic of Mayor de Blasio and his school chancellor, who both believe that a good solution for black and Latino minorities to get ahead in school is simply to eliminate the standardized test to get into New York’s toughest academies, why not do the same with the La Guardia school for the performing arts? Let’s forget about auditions and portfolios and try to even the number of boys who are admitted since only 26% of the student body is currently male. Why give priority to talent if you believe that intelligence and discipline, as reflected in the ability to ace a standardized test, are not essential pre-requisites for advanced academic work And why not insist that Asians are proportionately represented at La Guardia even if they don’t express as much interest in music and art. Or that girls, who currently account for only 40% of Stuyvesant are similarly favored to even their quota there.

Community activists argue that the discrimination against minorities is economic as much as racial but this is belied by the very population that is so well represented at Stuyvesant and Bronx Science – how many people know that the minority with the highest poverty rate in our city is Asian? Just as you can’t put the cart before the horse, you can’t pretend that by eliminating the screening for those who have the capacity to do advanced work, others will absorb it magically once they are in the company of advanced students The standardized test is the fairest prognosticator we have of student achievement, certainly more than subjective references from past teachers or even report cards from schools that may inflate their grades to enhance their own reputations and obscure their failures.

Trashing Tommy Robinson By Bruce Bawer

https://pjmedia.com/trending/trashing-tommy-robinson/

“What we cannot complain is that Tommy Robinson is being detained illegally,” asserts British journalist James Delingpole in a Monday article for Breitbart.

Now, Delingpole is supposed to be one of the good guys when it comes to this sort of thing. In the same article, in fact, he maintains that he is friendly with Robinson, who on May 25 was arrested while streaming live on Facebook from outside Leeds Criminal Court, where several Muslims were being tried for mass child rape. Tommy was then brought before a judge who sent him straight to prison for having violated the terms under which he was released by another judge last year. Delingpole says he admires Tommy and considers him brave. At the same time, alas, Delingpole charges that Tommy is “an adrenaline junkie who sometimes pushes it that bit too far.”

First, anent “adrenaline junkie”: I’d suggest that a lot of the great men and women of history were probably adrenaline junkies. I think Trump is one. Thomas Edison barely slept. Neither did Nikola Tesla. Or Leonardo da Vinci.

“Pushing too far”? Tommy’s “offense” last year was trying to videotape alleged Muslim pedophiles outside a courthouse in Canterbury.

On that occasion, he was brought before a female judge who, when asked about the very real danger of him being beaten up — or worse — if sentenced to prison, said: “So what?” Yes, that’s what she actually said. Every day, in the same courts, they treat accused mass rapists with more respect.

So I ask: how far is “too far” when you’re sounding the alarm about a nationwide child-rape epidemic that authorities up and down the line have conspired to cover up, that is still going on, that is (although one is not allowed to say so) a byproduct of Islamic theology, and that the mainstream media, even after they’ve finally been forced to face up to the reality of it, prefer to treat as if it were a series of parking violations?

As for Robinson being “detained illegally”: I, for one, certainly wouldn’t say that his detention is illegal. No, it’s entirely legal. That’s precisely the problem.

Wasserman Schultz Tried to Shield IT Aide from Capitol Hill Hacking Probe By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/debbie-wasserman-schultz-shield-tech-aide-capitol-hill-hacking-probe/

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) intervened in a Pakistani land dispute on behalf of her then-IT aide, Imran Awan, before pressuring House officials to kill an investigation into his hacking of House servers, according to a new Daily Caller report.

Awan, who worked as an IT aide for roughly two-thirds of House Democrats, was found to have gained “unauthorized access” to House servers in July 2016. The finding came just three days after Wikileaks released the first batch of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, at a time when Wasserman Schultz led the DNC.

Unlike most of her Democratic colleagues, who promptly fired Awan upon learning of the investigation, Wasserman Schultz became “frantic, not normal” and began “making the rounds” to pressure House officials to kill the probe, according to the Caller‘s sources. She subsequently attacked House chief administrative officer Phil Kiko, calling him a “f***ing Islamophobe.”

Wasserman Schultz reportedly enjoyed a close relationship Awan. The Caller‘s House sources claimed she had told Kiko she invited the entire Awan family to her daughter’s Bat Mitzvah, and that she “helped [Awan] with a land deal.”

Team Mueller’s Illegal, Unethical Hunt for the President’s Scalp George Parry

https://spectator.org/team-muellers-illegal-unethical-hunt-for

In the early 1970s, when I was a freshly minted Special Attorney with the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department, my fellow newly hired colleagues and I attended a lecture at Main Justice given by John Dowd, a well-regarded veteran prosecutor. His topic was the then little known and almost never used Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Dowd explained in detail the vast sweep of the statute and described the mind-boggling powers that Congress had conferred on us. In those long gone days of limited federal jurisdiction, we had a hard time processing what he was saying. According to him, Congress had effectively federalized almost every form of state criminal activity and had provided draconian and almost unimaginable punitive measures designed to strip defendants of their liberty and property.

Frankly, we thought Dowd was crazy. As he described it, RICO seemed too good to be true. But it wasn’t. We soon learned that he wasn’t nuts but a prophet, and, within a few short years, RICO became a standard prosecutorial bat that we enthusiastically swung with both hands.

I lost track of John Dowd until he became co-lead counsel of the president’s legal team dealing with Robert Mueller’s investigation of purported collusion between the Trump campaign and unnamed Russian operatives. To my dismay, I watched Dowd and co-counsel Ty Cobb pursue a course of complete transparency and cooperation with Mueller. According to media reports, they voluntarily produced over a million pages of documents and made administration witnesses available for interrogation. All of this was premised on the stated belief that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia and that the president did not obstruct justice by firing FBI Director James Comey.

Time’s Up, Bill By Rebecca Traister

https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-today-show-metoo.html

Bright and early Monday morning, Bill Clinton launched a book tour in support of a political thriller he wrote with the best-selling author James Patterson, called The President Is Missing. And sometime before 8 a.m., it had become clear that it had not occurred to our ex-president that hawking his book would also entail answering questions about Monica Lewinsky, and about how his affair with the White House intern had shaped — and slowed — the feminist conversation around sexual harassment.

Clinton’s feckless replies to questions about #MeToo revealed an unpreparedness that spoke volumes about why men have been able to abuse their power with relative impunity for generations, while the women around them have been asked to pay the price for them over and over and over again.

The interaction happened during an interview Clinton did, alongside Patterson, with the Today show’s Craig Melvin. Melvin kicked things off by asking Clinton about how his relationship with Lewinsky — consensual but nonetheless a clear abuse of professional and sexual power — had sullied recent reassessments of his presidency.

Clinton reared back, flustered. “We have a right to change the rules but we don’t have a right to change the facts,” he said, suggesting that Melvin didn’t know the facts of the Lewinsky case. Clinton claimed to “like the #MeToo movement; it’s way overdue.” But when Melvin pressed him on whether it had prompted him to rethink his own past behavior, like so many millions of other men and women around the world — including Lewinsky in a March Vanity Fair essay — he sputtered that of course he hadn’t, because he’d “felt terrible then.”

Egypt’s Al-Azhar Insists on Anti-Semitism by A. Z. Mohamed

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12438/egypt-azhar-antisemitism

Signed by politicians from the right and left, as well as Jewish, Muslim and Catholic leaders, the declaration asks that “the verses of the Quran calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be [denounced as] outdated by theological [Islamic] authorities, as were the incoherencies of the Bible and the Catholic anti-Semitism abolished by Vatican II, so that no believer can rely on a sacred text to commit a crime.”

“He [Abbas Shoman, Deputy to the Grand Imam of Al Azhar] also asked the signatories of the manifesto to understand that the Quran is the right way and “if they insist on their misguided understanding [of it], they should go to hell with their wrong understanding.” — El Masry al Youm, Egyptian daily.

One wonders how, after having been taught Islamic supremacy all their lives, imams could even try to understand such a manifesto. Sheikh Shoman’s remarks may just indicate his own indoctrinated anti-Semitism.

Saying that “Islamist violence has nothing to do with Islam” does not make it so. Like or not, it does.

Whether one likes it or not, the image of the Jews depicted and disseminated extensively by Quran is that they are inherently evil and enemies of Islam, enemies of “the religion of truth,” and of all Muslims. When anyone, such as a moderate Muslim or non-Muslim, draws attention to this dismaying fact, such as its direct connection to an indoctrinated hatred of “all” Jews, and when anyone calls for a justified examination or reform of these views, he immediately faces accusations of “Islamophobia.” He is then overwhelmed by dozens of false rationalizations and supposed justifications in a way that indicates a deeply-rooted avoidance by senior Muslim scholars and institutions — and even many mainstream Muslims — of the truth that Quranic verses are full of hatred of Jews. All of the Jews, no exceptions:

Al-Bukhari (3593) and Muslim (2921) narrated from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The Jews will fight you and you will prevail over them, then a rock will say: ‘O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.'”