RUTHFULLY YOURS

A bill in New York’s city council would require the New York Police Department to reveal crucial details about every surveillance technology that the department uses to detect terrorism and crime. Ninety days before the NYPD intends to implement a new surveillance technology, it would have to post on the Internet a technical description of how the new tool works, and how the department plans to use it. The public would have 45 days to comment on the proposed technology; the police commissioner would then have 45 days to respond to the public comments before he could actually start using the new capacity. Existing technologies would also have to be retroactively submitted to public review.

Perhaps aware that this moment may not be ideal for promoting what would be, in effect, a terrorists’ manual on how to evade discovery in New York City, the bill’s supporters have hilariously taken to casting it as a pro-illegal alien, anti-Trump gesture. New York is a “sanctuary city, now in open resistance to the Trump administration,” two members of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote in an op-ed advocating for the so-called Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act. (The Brennan Center wrote the POST Act for council members; the center has pushed similar bills across the country, including in Seattle and Oakland, two cities that have been particularly vulnerable to “anti-fascist” violence.) The city council press release claims that the bill “strengthens New York City’s commitment as a sanctuary city . . . as the Trump administration seeks to increase surveillance across America.”

In fact, the proposed law has nothing to do with New York’s deplorable status as a sanctuary city. Criminal illegal aliens avoid lawful deportation in New York because city and police officials release them back to the streets in defiance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests, not because of sophisticated surveillance technologies. But though the bill would have no effect on the city’s campaign to thwart immigration enforcement, it would impede the city’s ability to stay one step ahead of terrorist planning. Memo to the council: counterterrorism is not a leisurely activity compatible with lengthy public review and administrative red tape. It requires nimbleness and speed in the face of a rapidly evolving threat. And disclosing to the enemy the extent of, and details about, your surveillance capacities provides an invaluable blueprint for foiling those capacities.

Supporters of the bill are playing the race card as well, claiming that the bill is necessary to counter the NYPD’s historic tendency to oppress minorities. The managing director of the Bronx Defenders claims, without evidence, that the NYPD has illegally surveilled Black Lives Matter activists. Council members Dan Garodnick and Vanessa Gibson argue that “Surveillance technology often has a disproportionate, harmful impact on communities of color.” This claim is ludicrous. The radiation detectors that ring the city looking for nuclear threats, say, or the network of public cameras that protect critical infrastructure and sensitive buildings, have no disproportionate impact on minorities or any other group, other than on someone looking to do the city harm.

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, argued Monday that Trump should not face any criminal penalty just because he fired former FBI Director James Comey.

“The president of the United States should not be subject to criminal prosecution for merely exercising his constitutional authority,” he said on CNN.

“In the absence of any statute to the contrary, the president has the authority fire the director of the FBI, and the president has the power tell the director of the FBI who to investigate, who not to investigate,” he added.

Democrats have argued for months now that Trump fired Comey to disrupt the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election, which Democrats also say could show that Russia was colluding with Trump to bring down Clinton. Democrats admit there is no evidence of collusion so far, and recently have been arguing that Trump obstructed justice by encouraging Comey to drop the case.

But while Democrats have been saying Trump is trying to cover his tracks the way President Richard Nixon did, Dershowitz said the case is nothing like the Nixon coverup.

“This is not the Nixon case. This is the Bush case,” he said, referring to President George H.W. Bush’s pardon of former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Weinberger was thought to have information linking Bush to the Iran-Contra affair.

“Nobody suggested obstruction of justice” in that case, Dershowitz said.

Dershowitz added it makes no sense to expand obstruction of justice to cover “constitutionally authorized” actions by the president.

On October 11, 1991 the Thomas-Hill hearings were called to explore alleged sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas, who had been nominated by President George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. They were called to “investigate” Anita Hill’s claim that some “salty talk” by the nominee amounted to “sexual harassment” which rendered him unfit to serve among the Brethren. Among those who questioned/lectured Clarence Thomas was that paragon of probity Senator Edward Kennedy, the prince of Chappaquiddick.

This was the response of Clarence Thomas:

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

To paraphrase Clarence Thomas:

If you leave out the race issue, this statement can be easily applied to the Mueller/ Comey /Mainstream Media circus for which American taxpayers are paying a fortune.

“It is a high-tech lynching for a legally elected president who deigns to think for himself, to do for our nation, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a special prosecutor and his cronies.”

rsk

“The Sheik of Araby” is a song that was written in 1921 by Harry Smith and Francis Wheeler with music by Ted Snyder. It was composed in response to the popularity of the Rudolph Valentino movie ” The Sheik.” It was recorded and sung by almost 100 famous performers and even included in “The Muppets” and the Beatles.

Here are the lyrics:
“I’m the Sheik of Araby,
Your love belongs to me.
At night when you’re asleep
Into your tent I’ll creep.
The stars that shine above,
Will light our way to love.
You’ll rule this land with me.”

In November 1936, Don Albert’s band recorded the first version with the chant “Without no pants on” between the lines of lyrics. This got Albert’s record generally banned from radio.

As David illustrates, it took about a nanosecond after the shooting-spree targeting congressional Republicans for slaughter for the Left to roll into its anti-gun riff. Rep. Mo Brooks capped off his demonstration of personal valor with a flawless, spirited defense of the Second Amendment and the gun regulations that already exist in law. Bravo … and prayers for Rep. Steve Scalise for a speedy recovery, and for his family and the others who’ve been injured and traumatized.

At Powerline, Paul Mirengoff adds to his observation about the Left’s “stronger gun laws” response what he sees as the similar inevitability that “conservatives will blame overheated anti-Republican rhetoric.” I’m sure that’s true of some conservatives, but I doubt it’s true of most.

To put a finer point on it, what is blameworthy is the failure of government, academia and the media both to condemn the appalling notion of violent suppression as acceptable political expression, and to take enforcement and punitive action against instances of it. That is the problem here.

Of course conservatives don’t like obnoxious and fiery expression directed at us. But we do not seek to ban such speech as long as it remains on the right side of the line between argument and incitement, a line the First Amendment has always recognized. But if we are to have ordered liberty – a free society reliant on the rule of law – then the laws have to be enforced.

We used to say proudly to those with whom we disagree that, while we object to what they say, we would fight to the death for their right to say it. Now, the danger of death envelops those who have the temerity to say things that the radical Left finds objectionable. It is time to ostracize, and where possible prosecute or otherwise discipline, people who suppress speech through violence, intimidation, and other means of shutting down rather than engaging speech they find disagreeable.

Yesterday, while waiting in a hospital room for a dear friend, I listened to the conversations of other people. One young man (young is a relative term for superannuated people like me) was accompanied by a friend who was to be his translator since he only spoke Spanish. His translator was a young woman whose Spanish was abominable. They were very pleasant and friendly so I offered to help. I an fluent in Spanish which is my native tongue. She explained that “he would have went to the emergency room but they sent him to the floor and he don’t know where his cousin is at.” She then went on to tell me that she forgot a lot of her native Spanish. I asked the young man how long he was here and he grew very suspicious thinking that perhaps I was from “Immigration.” After I allayed his fears he assured me that he was a citizen and here for seven years. She told me that she was here since she was seven and that she learned English as a second language. She is a senior in one of the city’s colleges.

They were both so appreciative when I got the nurse to direct him, but I could not overcome a feeling of despair that even a rudimentary knowledge of our national language is not longer required to be a citizen and our education standards have fallen so low. rsk

In September 1940 The Burke-Wadsworth Act calling for a peacetime draft in the history of the United States was imposed. Selective Service was born and the registration of men between the ages of 21 and 36 began one month later. There were some 20 million eligible young men—50 percent were rejected the very first year, either for health reasons or illiteracy (20 percent of those who registered were illiterate). In November 1942, with the United States now engaged in World War 11 the draft ages expanded and men 18 to 37 were now eligible. By war’s end, approximately 34 million men had registered, and 10 million served with the military.
Those were the young men who answered the call of duty- who fought and died with honor in the major battles which vanquished Japanese and German enemies. I think of them today on the anniversary of the Normandy Invasion.

The Western Allies of World War II launched the largest amphibious invasion in history when they assaulted Normandy, located on the northern coast of France on June 6, 1944.

https://www.dday.org/history/d-day-the-invasion/overview.html

“It is hard to conceive the epic scope of this decisive battle that foreshadowed the end of Hitlers dream of Nazi domination. Overlord was the largest air, land, and sea operation undertaken before or since June 6, 1944. The landing included over 5,000 ships, 11,000 airplanes, and over 150,000 service men.

 After years of meticulous planning and seemingly endless training, for the Allied Forces, it all came down to this: The boat ramp goes down, then jump, swim, run, and crawl to the cliffs. Many of the first young men (most not yet 20 years old) entered the surf carrying eighty pounds of equipment. They faced over 200 yards of beach before reaching the first natural feature offering any protection. Blanketed by small-arms fire and bracketed by artillery, they found themselves in hell.

When it was over, the Allied Forces had suffered nearly 10,000 casualties; more than 4,000 were dead. Yet somehow, due to planning and preparation, and due to the valor, fidelity, and sacrifice of the Allied Forces, Fortress Europe had been breached.”

And that was the beginning of the end of World War 2. The memory of all those who fought is a blessing….rsk

A top government scientist with several PhDs in climate science, environmental studies, and climacteric syndrome ( recurring symptoms experienced by some women during menopause-hot flashes and chills) who wishes to remain anonymous, has informed me that many former and present members of the Congressional Climate Summit, have expressed serious concerns that the hot air emanating from the media and Congress and the methane Pelosium gas which is the prime constituent of swamp grass are contributing to Global Warming and causing irreversible harm to our Planet. rsk

Yesterday’s news is a mixed blessing…..The President’s failure to live up to a major campaign promise, and move the US Embassy to Jerusalem is very disappointing to say the least. It betrays America’s best ally and the millions of Americans for whom support for Israel is a major issue and priority.The fact that he did so in the face of Mahmoud Abbas’ obvious duplicity makes it more painful. We have seen the outcome of processed peace. All Israeli concessions are segued by a spree of terrorism. Let us hope the President will abandon the pursuit of a two state delusion.

On the good side, dumping the Paris Climate Accord is great news both in foreign and domestic policy. If only I could have seen the face of Al Gore when the”inconvenient truth” was announced….rsk Here is the response of Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the EPA:

ADMINISTRATOR PRUITT: Thank you, Mr. President. Your decision today to exit the Paris Accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put America first.

And by exiting, you’re fulfilling yet one more campaign promise to the American people. Please know that I am thankful for your fortitude, your courage, and your steadfastness as you serve and lead our country.

America finally has a leader who answers only to the people — not to the special interests who have had their way for way too long. In everything you do, Mr. President, you’re fighting for the forgotten men and women across this country. You’re a champion for the hardworking citizens all across this land who just want a government that listens to them and represents their interest.

You have promised to put America First in all that you do, and you’ve done that in any number of ways — from trade, to national security, to protecting our border, to rightsizing Washington, D.C. And today you’ve put America first with regard to international agreements and the environment.

This is an historic restoration of American economic independence — one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes. With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again. And it should be noted that we as a nation do it better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing our economy, growing jobs while also being a good steward of our environment.

We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship. After all, before the Paris Accord was ever signed, America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels from the early 1990s. In fact, between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 18-plus percent. And this was accomplished not through government mandate, but accomplished through innovation and technology of the American private sector.

For that reason, Mr. President, you have corrected a view that was paramount in Paris that somehow the United States should penalize its own economy, be apologetic, lead with our chin, while the rest of world does little. Other nations talk a good game; we lead with action — not words. (Applause.)

Our efforts, Mr. President, as you know, should be on exporting our technology, our innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint to learn from us. That should be our focus versus agreeing to unachievable targets that harm our economy and the American people.

Mr. President, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what’s right by the American people. You have that courage, and the American people can take comfort because you have their backs.

Thank you, Mr. President.

CAIRO, May 26 (Reuters) – Gunmen attacked buses and a truck taking a group of Coptic Christians to a monastery in southern Egypt on Friday, killing 26 people and wounding 25 others, witnesses and the Health Ministry said.

An Interior Ministry spokesman said the unidentified gunmen had arrived in three four-wheel-drive vehicles.

Eyewitnesses said masked men stopped the two buses and a truck and opened fire on a road leading to the monastery of Saint Samuel the Confessor in Minya province, which is home to a sizeable Christian minority.

Security forces launched a hunt for the attackers, setting up dozens of checkpoints and patrols on the desert road.The grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning, said the attack was intended to destabilize the country.

“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” Ahmed al-Tayeb said from Germany, where he was on a visit.

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called a meeting of security officials, the state news agency said. The Health Ministry put the toll at 26 dead and 25 wounded.

Coptic Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s population of 92 million, have been the subject of a series of deadly attacks in recent months.