Displaying the most recent of 89719 posts written by

Ruth King

Calexit Craziness The ‘Yes California’ independence campaign, led by a Russian-backed eccentric, deserves a firm ‘no’ vote. By Kevin D. Williamson

The Irish Republican Socialist party and Sinn Fein still dream of a unified Irish republic. The Catalan Solidarity for Independence coalition would see the Estelada flag raised over an independent Estat Català, and there are independence-minded movements as far-flung as the western Sahara. The Uhuru Movement is a kind of separatist movement standing on its head, looking to transcend national borders (with their colonial histories) and unite African people in a single African identity. The United States has the Texas Nationalist Movement hoping to restore the Republic of Texas, and somewhere out there is a very committed fellow who believes himself to be the rightful king of Hawaii. There is a more plausible movement for an independent Puerto Rico and a much less plausible movement for an independent California. All of these have something in common.

Russians.

Weird, right?

The movement for Californian independence expects to have an initiative on the 2018 ballot, which would in turn lead to a 2019 referendum. The organizers of the “Yes California” campaign say that winning the referendum would be only the first step in the long and complex process of establishing a free and independent California, finally liberated from the grasp of Washington and, especially, of the military-industrial complex. “Peace and Security” is, in fact, Exhibit A in the case for Calexit, and the organizers complain that the U.S. government “spends more on its military than the next several countries combined. Not only is California forced to subsidize this massive military budget with our taxes, but Californians are sent off to fight in wars that often do more to perpetuate terrorism than to abate it. The only reason terrorists might want to attack us is because we are part of the United States and are guilty by association.”

If that sounds like it could have been written by Ron Paul or some lonely disciple of Murray Rothbard, that is no accident: The leadership of the California-independence movement has a distinctly paleo smell about it.

“When I talk to people about California independence, they always say: ‘Well, what would you do if China invades?’” says Yes California president Louis Marinelli from his home in . . . Yekaterinburg, formerly Sverdlovsk (city motto: Don’t call us Siberia), an industrial center on the edge of the Ural Mountains in Russia. “Seriously,” he asks, “when’s the last time China invaded another country?” I mention the obvious ones: Tibet, India, and the Soviet Union. There’s Vietnam and Korea. Marinelli is a young man; perhaps much of this seems like ancient history to him. It does not to the Indians, or the Russians, or the Vietnamese, or many others. “No, I mean: When’s the last time China crossed an ocean to invade another country?” he clarifies. “Only the United States does that.”

Only?

The American war machine must surely be of some intense concern to California’s would-be Jefferson Davis, inasmuch as there is no legal or constitutional process for a state’s separating from the Union, a question that was settled definitively if not in court then just outside the courthouse at Appomattox.

Palestinians’ Real Enemies: Arabs by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Arab heads of state and monarchs do not like to be reminded of how badly they treat Palestinians and subject them to discriminatory and apartheid laws.

It is not comfortable or safe to be a Palestinian in an Arab country. Scenes of lawlessness and anarchy inside Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank have also driven many residents to move to nearby cities and villages. Most refugees in the West Bank no longer live inside UNRWA-run camps.

Let us end where we began: with the Palestinian (non)leadership. What has it done to help its people in the Arab countries? Nothing. No Palestinian leader will urge an emergency session of the UN Security Council to expose the ethnic cleansing and killing of Palestinians in Arab countries. No Palestinian leader will demand that the international media and human rights organizations investigate the atrocities perpetrated by Arabs on their Palestinian brethren. We are sure to see more such criminal silence when Abbas meets with the president of the United States.

Palestinians living in refugee camps in the Arab world are facing ethnic cleansing, displacement, and death — but their leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are too busy tearing each other to pieces to notice or even, apparently, care much.

Between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, it looks as if they are competing for the worst leadership, not the best. Clearly, neither regime gives a damn about the plight of their people in the Arab world.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is scheduled to visit Washington in the coming weeks for his first meeting with US President Donald Trump, spends most of his time abroad. There is hardly a country in the world that he has not visited since he assumed office in January 2005.

Hamas, for its part, is too occupied with hunting down Palestinians suspected of “collaboration” with Israel, and arming its members as massively as possible for war with Israel, to spend much time on the well-being of the two million people living under its thumb in the Gaza Strip. Hamas does have resources: its money is otherwise designated, however, to digging attack tunnels into Israel and smuggling weapons into the Gaza Strip.

The globetrotting Abbas, treated to red-carpet receptions wherever he shows up, has no time to attend to his miserable people in the Arab countries. Abbas devotes more than 90 percent of his speeches to denunciations of Israel, uttering barely a word about the atrocities committed against his people in Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iraq. The 82-year-old PA president is, as always, fully preoccupied with political survival.

Abbas’s real enemies are his critics, such as estranged Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, and Hamas. Abbas is currently focused on undermining Dahlan and preventing Hamas from taking control of the West Bank. In the past few years, Abbas has also demonstrated an obsession with isolating and delegitimizing Israel in the international arena. For him, this mission is more sacred than saving the lives of Palestinians.

Iran’s Elections: Black Turbans vs. White Turbans by Mohammad Amin

Any distinction between “extremists” and “moderates” in Iran’s political establishment is false.

Whatever the results of the upcoming Iranian elections, there will be no shift in Tehran’s human rights violations or core aims of regional hegemony and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

What does matter is the behavior of the West, particularly the United States, in the near future. If it again resorts to cooperating with Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and Syria, Khamenei will not only be able to pursue his regional and global interests unfettered, but will be better equipped to contain crises at home.

The presidential elections in Iran, scheduled for May 19, have observers wondering whether the “white turban” incumbent, Hassan Rouhani, will retain his position, or be defeated by his likely contender, the “black turban” mullah, Ebrahim Raisi, known for his key role in the 1988 massacre of more than 30,000 political prisoners.

Iran’s elections have observers wondering whether the “white turban” incumbent, Hassan Rouhani (left), will retain his position or be defeated by his likely contender, Ebrahim Raisi (right), the “black turban” mullah. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons).

More importantly, the question on Western minds is how and in what way the Islamic Republic will be affected by either outcome.

The two periods in Iran’s recent history that need to be examined in order to answer this question are that of the tenure of former firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005 to 2013), who also announced he is running again, and the one that has followed under Rouhani.

At the outset of the Ahmadinejad era, Iran’s GDP (using purchasing power parity) soared beyond $1 trillion, and two of the country’s greatest threats — Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan under the Taliban — were eliminated. Both enabled Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to solidify his stronghold.

Midway through this period, however, Iran’s economy fell sharply. Iran became the country with the fifth highest inflation rate in the world. Iran fell into a serious recession, and millions of Iranians found themselves unemployed. All this was going on even before the international community imposed sanctions on the regime in Tehran.

In the years that followed Ahmadinejad’s replacement by the so-called “moderate” Rouhani, sanctions were lifted; oil exports reached pre-sanction levels; billions of dollars’ worth of assets abroad were unfrozen; and hundreds of agreements were signed to expand business transactions with the West.

Nevertheless, the last year of Rouhani’s first term was characterized by yet another economic crisis, summarized in March by Iranian Road and Construction Minister Abbas Akhoondi as: banks going bankrupt, crippling national debt and low economic efficiency.

Black-Clad, Masked Thugs Attack Pro-Trump Protesters By Rick Moran

The press is playing this one right down the middle — both sides are to blame for the violence that erupted in Berkeley when pro- and anti-Trump protesters clashed.

But here’s a video that clearly shows the black clad, masked anti-Trump protesters initiating much of the violence.

CNN:

Eleven people were injured, with seven transported to the hospital in unknown condition, Berkeley Police spokesman Byron White told CNN.

“A large number of fights have occurred and numerous fireworks have been thrown in the crowds,” Berkeley police said in a statement. “There have also been numerous reports of pepper spray being used in the crowd.”

CNN affiliate KPIX reported that Trump supporters planned a “Patriot Day” rally at noon and counter-protesters showed up a few hours earlier.

Hundreds of people had gathered in Civic Center Park. Police set up a barrier of orange mesh fence to separate the two sides but it quickly fell down as protesters started fighting, KPIX said.

Video showed crowds spilling into nearby streets. Scuffles broke out, fireworks, bottles and traffic cones were thrown into crowds and dumpsters and trash cans were hauled into streets. One man set afire a red “USA” hat and held it overhead.

Police donned gas masks as they used pepper spray on the crowd. A Berkeley station for BART, the mass transit system, was shut down because of the disturbance, CNN affiliate KRON said.

Police said they confiscated prohibited items including hand-held flagpoles, a knife, a stun gun, helmets and signs, and flags attached to poles, KRON reported.

A police officer was treated and released from a hospital after someone threw either pepper spray or tear gas into the crowd, White said. He added that a person in the crowd was treated and released after being sprayed with “bear spray,” an irritant spray used to deter aggressive bears in wilderness areas.

Jihadism Slipped into Comic Books?By Joshua Gelernter

Something very peculiar has gone on in the comic book world over the last two weeks.

Two weeks ago, Marvel Comics—proprietors of Spider-Man, Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, the Avengers, and so on—released a comic book titled X-Men Gold #1. It’s a sort of reboot of the X-Men, the mutant superheroes who’ve torn up our movie screens over the last 15 years. X-Men Gold #1 included drawings filled with subtle anti-Christian and anti-Semitic propaganda.

When I first saw a headline to that effect, I assumed it was someone overreacting to something—but then Marvel apologized and recalled the issue.

A few months ago—on December 2 of last year—there were protest marches directed at the governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama. Basuki is a Christian. The protests were over comments he made that the Quranic Surah (“chapter”) 5:51 shouldn’t be taken to mean that “Muslims should not appoint Jews and Christians as their leaders,” which is evidently the idiomatic translation used in Indonesia. The literal translation of the passage is, “O you that have believed, do not take the Jews and Christians as Allies. They are, in fact, allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you—then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.”

For allegedly trying to persuade people to ignore the Quaran, Governor Basuki was labeled a blasphemer, and protested by an angry mob hundreds of thousands strong. The December 2 protest became known as the 212 protest, and was duplicated on February 21 of this year; also a “2/12” in some calendars. (Ours, for instance.)

These protests were supported by Indonesian Comic Book artist Ardian Syaf, who illustrated X-Men Gold #1. A drawing in that comic book shows a very-religious Catholic X-Man playing baseball with one of his superhero colleagues, who’s shirt is emblazoned with “QS 5:51.” That is, Quranic Surah 5:51. Another drawing shows a Jewish X-Man, Kitty Pryde, addressing a crowd of onlookers on a city street. As she explains to the crowd that she is the leader of the X-Men, a man in the crowd glares at her; he has the number “51” stamped on his t-shirt —reminding everyone not to accept Jews as leaders. Above him, a storefront is emblazoned with the number 212. Miss Pryde herself stands in front of Jewelry store. Her head partly obscures the last few letters, leaving the word “Jew” floating by her head.

Wellesley’s Student Paper Mounts a Barely Literate Defense of Censorship All the while bemoaning the lack of education that keeps people from having “correct” opinions. by Alice B. Lloyd

Three weeks after a coalition of professors publicly defended their right to censor Title IX naysayer and feminist intellectual Laura Kipnis, a Wellesley News editorial has caught viral flak from civil libertarians, conservatives, copy editors, and other sensible sorts for its clumsy defense of censorship in the name of sensitivity. All before the student paper’s server, and with it the editorial in question, went down Friday morning, that is.

“Many members of our community, including students, alumnae and faculty, have criticized the Wellesley community for becoming an environment where free speech is not allowed or is a violated right,” the editorial accurately observes. “Many outside sources have painted us as a bunch of hot house flowers who cannot exist in the real world.” True.

In their defense of the modern academy’s responsibility to assimilate the unenlightened, the students distinguish “free speech” from “hate speech.” But their failed experiments in sentence structure, as well as logical leaps none among the uninitiated could easily follow, backfire: “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.” The pronoun “it” floats free, unbound by any antecedent, after the semicolon. The editorialists may have meant the second half of the sentence as a coded message to the world outside their coddling cell: Shutting down rhetoric is hate speech, of course it is! Send help!

But, in a likelier reality, they’ve offered an object lesson in undergraduate groupthink. On your typical elite campus, divergence from the status quo merits hostile rebuke rather than debate: “[I]f people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.” And no one seems to remember her—or, I’m sorry, their—elementary writing mechanics or American history.

“The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government,” they write. “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.” The unthinking reflex to stay safe from dissent and foster intellectual sameness at the expense of rigorous debate has no particular precedent in actual history—or really anywhere off campus, or in any prior generation.

“Vindictive protectiveness” may be the fault of turn-of-the-millennium helicopter parents, Facebook’s fostering of oversensitivity, widespread political polarization, or an emphasis on emotional reasoning in soft sciences.

NEA taxpayer dollars helps artists feel good about themselves By Ed Straker

The Washington Post tried to create what it thought was a clever agit/prop video in favor of the National Endowment for the Arts. Rather than showing NEA funding in big cities, the video explored funding largely in rural, conservative Indiana, represented by Republican congressmen. The hope was to whip up support among Republicans to save the NEA.

If the Republicans do spare the NEA, it won’t be because of this video, which unintentionally highlights the frivolous expenditures made by the agency.

Some highlights:

The hidden loom. The NEA funds a program in “a basement of a county museum” to show people how clothes were loomed in the 19th century. How vital is that? In a basement of an obscure county museum, how many people have even seen it?

Resident artist in an empty museum. Another NEA grant pays for a “resident artist” in a small museum. There’s no mention of what this resident artist does, or how many people he reaches, but the telling part of the video is where a museum official is being interviewed in what looks like a museum without a single visitor.

Quilting to improve lilting self-confidence. Another NEA grant goes to a woman who hand stitches quilts in the forest and then donates them. We learn that kids won’t know the joys of quilting without an NEA grant. How did people ever learn the joys of quilting before the NEA? If people stopped quilting (actually, I think most of them have), what is the loss to the nation? Daren Redman, the quilter who got the grant, says there is a real benefit; every time she gets taxpayer money, she says her sense of self-confidence goes up.

Scribbling in hospitals to stop artist from crying. The NEA also paid $63,000 to hire someone to go to hospitals and give patients colored pencils and paper to scribble with. The benefit? We don’t know, because the artist they hired broke down in tears and started crying when asked to explain. I get the feeling that like Daren Redman the quilter, the money is being spent not to help citizens but to help emotionally fragile artists feel better about themselves.

NUTS IN THE BIG APPLE-!!!!!?????

New York Recognizes 31 GENDERS—NOT a Typo—Crazier Than California!By Stephen Frank

thanks e-pal Joan Swirsky

Congratulations to Jerry Brown and his Sacramento buddies—California is no longer the weirdest State in the Union—New York may have won that honor. While we are taught there are two genders—m ale and female, in New York there are 31 genders recognized by the Socialist/hedonistic government of the city that never sleeps (It can’t sleep since it is working hard to create new genders.

Yes, there are males and females. Lesbians are not a gender, they are women that sexually like women. Homosexuals are not a gender, they are men that like men sexually. Transgenders are either men who feel like women, or women that feel like men.

Dictionary.com says this, “noun

either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:

the feminine gender.

Compare sex (def 1).”

a similar category of human beings that is outside the male/female binary classification and is based on the individual’s personal awareness or identity.

See also third gender.”

Here are some of the “new” genders” recognized by New York:

Two-Spirit
Trans
Agender
Third Sex
Gender Fluid
Non-Binary Transgender
Androgyne
Gender Gifted
Gender Blender
Femme
Person of Transgender Experience

This is not a comedy routine—Mayor Di Blasio is serious! Please do not laugh too hard.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Narrow Win Could End Up Undermining Him Instead of cementing Turkish president’s authority, winning by such a thin—and contested—margin may threaten his ability to govern unchallenged By Yaroslav Trofimov

This isn’t the kind of victory that Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted.

Turkey’s president, after all, has long enjoyed most of the executive powers that he formally obtained in Sunday’s vote on constitutional changes. His role as head of the country’s governing party, with its pliant parliamentary majority, ensured that real authority was already concentrated in the presidential palace.

What Mr. Erdogan needed, after the July coup attempt against him, was a public affirmation of his leadership—and of his drive to root out dissent. That drive saw hundreds of thousands of opponents, including most leaders of the second-largest opposition party in parliament, hounded from their jobs or thrown behind bars.

With the broadcast media under tight state control and “No” campaigners branded by government officials as traitors or terrorists, Mr. Erdogan’ aides just a few weeks ago confidently predicted that “Yes” would carry the referendum by 60% or more.

Instead, despite all the intimidation and the widespread reports of fraud during Sunday’s vote, the preliminary results, as released by Anadolu state news agency, showed “Yes” barely eking it out at 51.2% versus 48.8%.

That didn’t deter Mr. Erdogan from issuing congratulations on the victory. “The entire country has triumphed,” he said, calling for an end to “unnecessary discussions.”

In a speech to a crowd of supporters gathered under the rain in front of the ruling party’s headquarters, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim described the vote as providing a popular mandate for Mr. Erdogan. “It’s a turning point in the history of our democracy,” he said. “Against the traitors and dividers we stood united as a nation.”

Yet, instead of cementing Mr. Erdogan’s authority, such a thin—and contested—margin may end up threatening his ability to govern unchallenged in the months to come.

“Erdogan may discover that this is a Pyrrhic victory,” said Henri Barkey, director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “He may have won now, but he may find that in the medium term opposition to him at home and abroad may harden.”

Turkey’s opposition politicians have already claimed that massive fraud has occurred, particularly in the ruling party’s strongholds in rural Anatolia and in the war-ravaged Kurdish areas of southeast Turkey. These complaints are likely to further delegitimize the result in the eyes of many Turks opposed to Mr. Erdogan.

“It’s the first election in which people have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the process,” said Asli Aydintasbas, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “This means nothing gets solved, and this remains a deeply polarized and divided country. That’s a very dangerous place to be in.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump’s Art of the China Deal Will Xi Jinping really help the U.S. contain North Korea?

President Trump is reversing some of his foreign-policy positions, but this should be no great surprise and so far the changes are mainly for the better. Mr. Trump is never going to pursue a consistent geopolitical strategy because he doesn’t think that way. As President he is approaching the world as he does everything else—as a transactional deal maker who wants agreements that he can sell as a security or economic success. Exhibit A is his recent engagement with China over North Korea’s nuclear missile program.

Mr. Trump campaigned last year as the President who would challenge China’s trade practices, naming Beijing a currency manipulator “on day one.” But after the election President Obama advised him to make North Korea’s nuclear advances a priority. Mr. Trump had no problem shifting quickly from threatening China on trade to using trade as a lever to get China to help the U.S. restrain or end North Korea’s nuclear threat.

“Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens!” Mr. Trump tweeted on Easter Sunday, explaining why his Treasury Department chose not to slap the manipulator label on China. This policy shift has the added benefit of recognizing that China has been trying for months to prop up its currency, not devalue it for trade advantages.

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has made a theme of ramping up political pressure on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. The Pentagon sent a carrier group to the East China Sea for maneuvers with the Japanese navy. Mr. Trump tweeted after his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping this month that “I have great confidence that China will properly deal with North Korea. If they are unable to do so, the U.S., with its allies, will!”

H.R. McMaster, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, warned North Korea on Sunday that its “destabilizing” behavior “can’t continue” after the North launched another missile Saturday, albeit a failure that exploded soon after launch. There’s been much media speculation that a U.S. cyber attack helped to scuttle the missile launch. We’d like to think so, though no one in government has confirmed it.

The problem is that so far there’s little evidence that China is changing its policy toward Pyongyang. The case for optimism includes some editorials in Chinese state media criticizing the Kim regime, as well as reports that China has turned back North Korean ships carrying coal exports. The White House also points to China’s decision last week to abstain at the U.N. and not join Russia in vetoing a resolution condemning Syria’s chemical attack.CONTINUE AT SITE