Displaying the most recent of 89982 posts written by

Ruth King

Too Far Right, and Too Jewish-European Elites Demonization of Benjamin Netanyahu Guy Sorman

https://media5.manhattan-institute.org/iiif/2/sites%2Fcj%2Ffiles%2Freal-reasons-for-europes-demonization-of-netanyahu.jpg/full/!1900,1900/0/default.jpg

In the liberal media and among the intelligentsia and the European political class there reigns an untroubled unanimity on the subject of Israel: it is no longer a democracy because its new government is of the Right. Too far to the right. I have no particular sympathy for Benjamin Netanyahu, but I must observe that the manner of his election was perfectly legitimate. Nor have I any sympathy—far from it—for the extremist Jewish parties that have entered into the government coalition, but they, too, were elected. Thus, I cannot see on what grounds the objecting Europeans allow themselves to denounce Israeli democracy. I am reminded of a famous proposal by Bertolt Brecht: “Since the people vote against the government, the people must be dissolved.” As it happens, a majority of Israelis consider themselves represented in Netanyahu’s new government, and the minority will take back power in a few more years. Such are the mechanics of universal suffrage.

Therefore, before diabolizing Netanyahu, Europe’s finest should ask themselves about his repeated electoral successes and record for longevity, both of which bring to mind Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, and José María Aznar. The voters know what they’re doing: under Netanyahu, Israelis have experienced their greatest security, and never has their economy been more prosperous. It was thus not by chance that Netanyahu was reelected, but as a reward for his success and his good fortune (in politics, luck and success are indissociable). Has he threatened democracy in the past, and will he distort it this time in order to please his integralist allies? This may be doubted, since the person who could make the Israelis shut up would not be of this world. The Hebrews quarreled with God; the Jews argue ceaselessly among themselves, and that includes the Israelis. The media are free and will remain so, as are the parties and the judges. The Israeli army does not accept orders from without. As for the rabbis, there are as many points of view among them as there are synagogues.

What, then, is the source of this Western condemnation of the new Israeli government and these dark prophecies concerning democracy? First, there is ignorance. What European scribbler inquires into the problems Netanyahu faces? We prefer to condemn him from afar, for fear of being contradicted by reality.

Paul Johnson’s Historic Times The journalist and popular historian and lover of America dies at age 94.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-johnson-dies-age-94-historian-author-modern-times-america-11673649939?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

There’s an old joke that academics bitterly complain about popular historians for the high sin of publishing books people enjoy reading. Few working journalists have written history with as much elan and narrative force as the British author Paul Johnson, who died this week at age 94.

Johnson spent his early career editing the New Statesman, later contributing to the Spectator, Commentary and others, including these pages. His more than 50 books range from “The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815-1830” to “Art: A New History” to histories of the United States, Christianity and the Jews.

“Obviously,” George W. Bush quipped in 2006 when presenting Johnson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, “the man is not afraid to take on big subjects.”

His most broadly influential book, first published in 1983, was “Modern Times,” a history of the 20th century from the 1920s to the 1980s. It opens with the confirmation of the theory of relativity in 1919 and is propelled for more than 800 pages by this core thesis: “There are no inevitabilities in history.”

The Coming Gas Stove Culture War Don’t believe this week’s denials. Progressive Democrats really are coming for your kitchen appliances.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-gas-stove-culture-war-progressives-consumer-product-safety-commission-richard-trumka-jr-kathy-hochul-11673647434?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

A sign of the media times is how quickly our leading progressive organs rally to deny that Democrats are doing what Democrats really are doing. A classic example was this week’s flare up in the coming climate war over banning gas stoves.

A Biden appointee on the Consumer Product Safety Commission explicitly threatened to ban gas stoves based on dubious evidence of public-health harm. “This is a hidden hazard,” said commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. “Any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”

We and others criticized the idea, and the media response was to rush to blame conservatives for starting it all. “Right’s new fight: Gas stoves,” said Axios, which pushes hard for the climate alarmist agenda. The Washington Post assured its readers that “regulators have no plans to ban gas stoves, but Republicans are slamming the Consumer Product Safety Commission for announcing it will examine the health impacts of the appliances.”

But we didn’t make up Mr. Trumka’s quote. We and others responded to it. After withering public criticism, including by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the CPSC Chairman denied any plan to ban, and the White House said President Biden also doesn’t want to ban gas stoves. But that’s cold comfort given that the climate left does want to ban them, and progressive cities and states are doing it.

Progressive cities such as Berkeley, San Francisco and New York City have already banned gas stoves and other appliances in new buildings. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul this week proposed a ban on gas equipment including stoves in new small buildings in 2025 and larger ones in 2028.

GLAZOV GANG: THE GREAT RESET AND THE GREEN FRAUD VIDEO

https://jamieglazov.com/2023/01/13/glazov-gang-the-great-reset-and-the-green-fraud/

This new Glazov Gang episode features Marc Morano, the founder of ClimateDepot.com and the author of The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown.

Marc discusses The Great Reset and The Green Fraud, exposing The global elites’ pernicious agenda.

The January 6th “Insurrection” Victor Davis Hanson

https://victorhanson.com/the-january-6th-insurrection/

Here is what we do not understand about the January 6th Committee—if it truly was intended to appear as a disinterested investigatory body.

1. Why for the first time in memory did Speaker Pelosi forbid the House Minority Leader’s pro forma nominees to a special House committee? Fairly or not, the result was that the only two Republicans who did serve shared two embarrassing requisites: they would likely be out office, and not by their own volition, in January 2023; and two, they despised Donald Trump and voted for the second Trump impeachment.

So, what were the Democrats afraid of to make them break all precedents with past hearings? Pelosi, in other words, ensured that there would be no cross-examinations of any witnesses, no disagreements about witness lists, no contrasting interviews to the media about the work of the committee, and no diversity in staff interrogatories.

2. Why did not the Committee investigate whether the FBI had numerous agents and informants present on January 6th? Michael Rosenberg, the New York Times assigned reporter to the demonstration, claimed they were ubiquitous. Were they?

3. Why did not the Committee review the circumstances in detail of the deaths of Officer Brian Sicknick and the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt. These were the two most high-profile and controversial deaths on January 6th, and Babbitt’s perhaps was the only violent death at the direct hand of a known other?

4. Why did not the Committee investigate and release all the communications between the House leadership and the Capitol police to learn why the Capitol was virtually open and unsecured on a day that everyone knew would be the scene of mass protests there?

5. Why did not the Committee investigate all incendiary speech by major elected officials at iconic Washington buildings, deemed inflammatory and allegedly resulting in violence at a subsequent time? For example, in 2020 then Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer screamed to a large demonstration massed at the doors of the Supreme Court:

I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh—you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

MY SAY: WORDS-WORTH AMUSEMENT

When renewing my ballet subscription for 2023, after submitting the order this was sent online:

https://www.metopera.org/cart/confirmation/

Your purchase qualifies you to purchase single tickets to the 2023 ABT season. When purchasing through the website, you will be sat in the best available seats in your chosen section.

When trying to cancel my late daughter’s health coverage automatic payments, after an hour of listening to horrible music, the very polite agent told me:

“In order to expedite your request, I would have to speak to the deceased to confirm that you can speak  on her behalf.!!!???

And the best of all from a subscriber to the newsletter:

“Is there a word in the dicktionary to describe Senator Schumer? “

Is There a Legal Remedy for George Santos’ Lies? by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19316/george-santos

Unless he has lied on government forms, it is unlikely that he can be successfully prosecuted or civilly sued. His victims are primarily the voters who cast ballots for a person who was very different from who they believed him to be.

No congressman has ever been removed for defrauding voters, but if there were ever a case for doing so, this would be it. The House would be reluctant to use that nuclear option because it would subject many incumbents to scrutiny for their electoral lies.

The dangers of punishing general falsehoods is demonstrated by the laws of other countries. In Poland it is a crime to state that the Polish people participated in the Holocaust, although that statement is absolutely true as a matter of history. Polish people not only collaborated with Nazis, some continued to kill Jews even after the Nazis left. The Polish parliament has declared the historic truth to be a punishable lie.

In Turkey, it is a crime to say that the Armenian genocide occurred. In France it is a crime to say that this very same event did not occur.

The alternative to freedom of speech is necessarily some form of censorship. Throughout history censorship by governments, churches and other powerful institutions has been the rule. It has not worked. Nor has untrammeled free speech worked perfectly. But history has clearly demonstrated that censorship is far more dangerous to liberty than is free speech.

“[W]e have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasoning of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors…” – Thomas Jefferson, July 3, 1801.

[A]s long as truth tellers are able to respond to liars, we have far more to fear from censorship than from free speech.

Congressman George Santos has lived a life of lies. He has lied about his early life, his academic record, his business experience, his wealth, his heritage, his personal life and his criminal record. He is fortunate that the vast majority of these lies have not been under oath. Nor have they defamed specific individuals. Unless he has lied on government forms, it is unlikely that he can be successfully prosecuted or civilly sued. His victims are primarily the voters who cast ballots for a person who was very different from who they believed him to be.

What the January 6 Videos Will Show Roll the tapes. By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/12/what-the-january-6-videos-will-show/

The jury trial of Richard Barnett, the man famously photographed with his feet on a desk in Nancy Pelosi’s office on January 6, 2021, is underway in Washington, D.C. Nearly two years to the date of his arrest, Barnett finally had a chance to defend himself in court on multiple charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding.

But it was not the fiery, outspoken Barnett who provided the most jaw-dropping testimony in the trial so far. To the contrary, one of the government’s own witnesses confirmed under defense cross-examination that “agents provocateur” were heavily involved in instigating the events of January 6. 

Captain Carneysha Mendoza, a tactical commander for U.S. Capitol Police at the time, testified Wednesday how a group of agitators destroyed security barriers and lured people to Capitol grounds that afternoon:

Defense Counsel Brad Geyer: Isn’t it true that you had a lot of people, a large quantity of people walking down two streets that dead-ended at the Capitol?

Mendoza: Yes, sir.

How Stanford Failed the Academic Freedom Test For America’s new clerisy, scientific debate is a danger to be suppressed BY Jay Bhattacharya

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/stanford-failed-academic-freedom-test
Thanks to Dr. John Abeles at https://johnhabelesmd.substack.com/p/academic-freedom-under-attack?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

“The same priests of public health that have the authority to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy also cast out heretics, just like the medieval Catholic Church did.”

We live in an age when a high public health bureaucrat can, without irony, announce to the world that if you criticize him, you are not simply criticizing a man. You are criticizing “the science” itself. The irony in this idea of “science” as a set of sacred doctrines and beliefs is that the Age of Enlightenment, which gave us our modern definitions of scientific methodology, was a reaction against a religious clerisy that claimed for itself the sole ability to distinguish truth from untruth. The COVID-19 pandemic has apparently brought us full circle, with a public health clerisy having replaced the religious one as the singular source of unassailable truth.

The analogy goes further, unfortunately. The same priests of public health that have the authority to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy also cast out heretics, just like the medieval Catholic Church did. Top universities, like Stanford, where I have been both student and professor since 1986, are supposed to protect against such orthodoxies, creating a safe space for scientists to think and to test their ideas. Sadly, Stanford has failed in this crucial aspect of its mission, as I can attest from personal experience.

I should note here that my Stanford roots go way back. I earned two degrees in economics there in 1990. In the ’90s, I earned an M.D. and a Ph.D. in economics. I’ve been a fully tenured professor at Stanford’s world-renowned medical school for nearly 15 years, happily teaching and researching many topics, including infectious disease epidemiology and health policy. If you had asked me in March 2020 whether Stanford had an academic freedom problem in medicine or the sciences, I would have scoffed at the idea. Stanford’s motto (in German) is “the winds of freedom blow,” and I would have told you at the time that Stanford lives up to that motto. I was naive then, but not now.

Academic freedom matters most in the edge cases when a faculty member or student is pursuing an idea that others at the university find inconvenient or objectionable. If Stanford cannot protect academic freedom in these cases, it cannot protect academic freedom at all.

With all the evidence of mRNA vaccine injury, why aren’t more doctors speaking out? By H.P. Smith

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/01/with_all_the_evidence_of_mrna_vaccine_injury_why_arent_more_doctors_speaking_out.html

I listened to an interesting interview recently with Dr. Aseem Malhotra by Bret Weinstein of The Darkhorse Podcast  on Dec. 31, 2022. 

The beginning of the interview focused on Dr. Malhotra, a British cardiologist, telling his story of how he went from being a COVID-19 vaccine advocate to someone who was questioning the mRNA jabs, at least partially brought on by the death of his own father.  His father was also a physician and had been in favor of the shots, which Dr. Malhotra said in a recent tweet “…should likely never have been approved and certainly not without informed consent.” 

It was a very touching story, and it was very clear that Dr. Malhotra cared deeply for his father.  Any loss of this type — unnecessary and wasteful — is tragic, and anyone with an ounce of compassion can’t help but empathize.

But there were some troubling aspects of the interview.  One in particular was that Dr. Malhotra had been onboard with the mRNA jabs, and I couldn’t help but wonder how many people he recommended take the shots.  How many people may have suffered an adverse affect or worse because of his advice?  

 Very early on, I was skeptical of these new treatments.  I graduated college with a B.S. in Biology more than 25 years ago, but my career is in finance (long story)…so I understood enough about the scientific process that I was doubtful of their proclaimed “safety.”  Long term safety at that point (and still now) literally could not have been known.  It was far too early.

I researched them and quickly found people like Dr. Simone Gold (America’s Frontline Doctors) and Dr. Peter McCullough…individuals who were willing to risk their careers and reputations to get the message out that maybe we needed to slow down and learn more about the new vaccines.