The Cure for Media Bias Breaking the monopoly of the progressive gospel. Bruce Thornton

We have long known that the progressive media no longer have any journalistic integrity. The pass given to Barack Obama on his gaffes, sketchy personal history, and dubious associates––all of which would have sunk a Republican candidate––stripped the last camouflage from reporters who used to at least try to hide their political biases and prejudices. Now facing the end of their messiah’s presidency, the media left are pulling out all the stops to elevate Hillary Clinton and demonize her opposition in order to complete The One’s fundamental transformation of the United States.

But candidate Obama, whose dubious personal biography the media helped to keep on the down low, lacked much of a public record, making him something of a blank slate to be filled with pleasing rhetoric and a feel-good bio. Hillary, on the other hand, has a long public history of money-grubbing, lying, and abusing power. We all know the catalogue of Hillary scandals, from Whitewater to Benghazi, from Filegate to Emailgate, from lying to the grieving parents of the dead heroes of Benghazi, to lying to the American people about the classified information that passed through her unsecured private server. Despite their eagerness to cover Bill’s sexual scandals in the 90s, today’s mainstream media have ignored, downplayed, or rationalized most of Hillary’s bad behavior. And during this primary season, they have not objectively followed the most blatant scandals––Benghazi, the unsecured email server, and the fiscal skullduggery of the Clinton Foundation–– with the obsessive fervor they’ve devoted to Donald Trump’s bad manners, Carly Fiorina’s alleged failures at Hewlett-Packard, Dr. Ben Carson’s missing surgical sponges, Ted Cruz’s “meanness,” or Marco Rubio’s traffic violations.

So we shouldn’t be surprised that the New York Times endorsed Hillary on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. Having helped put an incompetent and malignant token black in the White House, the Times is now eager to install a token woman, no matter how lacking in skill and achievements. But still astonishing is the editors’ claim that Hillary is “one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.” Such preposterous praise recalls the presidential historian who claimed that Obama is the most intelligent candidate for president ever––the same genius who thinks there is an “intercontinental railroad” and an “Austrian language.” As I’ve learned during 40 years of observing affirmative action in the university, when progressives are serving the gods of diversity and leftist ideology, reality doesn’t matter, and hectoring claims of achievement substitute for the real thing. Like a poem, the diversity “mascot,” as Thomas Sowell puts it, doesn’t have to do anything but exist.

Government Survey Asks 13-Year-Olds to Pick Their Gender (or Genders) from a List of 25 Parents of kids in Brighton, England are not too happy. By Katherine Timpf

Schoolchildren as young as 13 in Brighton, England were told to fill out a government survey that asked them to pick out their gender (or genders) from a list of 25 options.

Yes — gender or genders.

Among the options were “tri-gender” (having exactly three genders,) “gender fluid” (having your gender change over time,) “demi-boy/demi-girl” (someone who is only partially male/female,) and “all genders” (which would be an infinite number because gender is obviously a spectrum.)

Below is the complete list, from which instructed students to “choose as many as [they] want:”






(Young) woman

(Young) man

The Intifada Is Ideological Hatred of Israel in Word and Deed Arabs under Palestinian rule are bombarded with anti-Jewish, anti-Israel messages. By Douglas J. Feith

In recent weeks, Arabs armed with knives and hatchets have struck at dozens of Israelis on the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Afula, Beersheba, and elsewhere. Victims include children, women, and elderly men.

Imagine how the American public would react to a political group that incited supporters to knife people on the streets of New York, Cleveland, Denver, and Seattle. Fear, indignation, and anger would translate into furious insistence that the government put an end to the evil. No political grievance would be accepted as an excuse for the savagery.

Yet in this case, murders spawned by false, fanatical accusations from Palestinian religious and political leaders spawn still more foul words of a different kind: equivocation by U.S. officials who, having completely lost their bearings, sound like apologists for the murderers.

Obama-administration officials urged both sides to exercise restraint. U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power invoked the “cycle of violence.” Using the passive voice to cloud the picture, she said that “mistrust has been exacerbated by viral images and videos shared on social media, which further polarize narratives and foster suspicion, and even hatred on both sides.” Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of the murders with a hey-that’s-just-politics tone. Saying (inaccurately) that there’s been a recent “massive increase in settlements,” he then commented understandingly, “Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

If Americans were being systematically knifed on the streets, no American official would be so morally blind as to excuse the attacks as an expression of political frustration. Not a chance.

President Barack Obama took a similarly cool and neutral line. He called on both Palestinian and Israeli leaders “to try to tamp down rhetoric that may feed violence or anger, or misunderstanding.”

The Year of the Islamists Why we are all Israel now By Lee Habeeb & Mike Leven

The first month of the year is behind us, and so is the season for predictions. But if there’s one thing we can be sure of as this year unfolds, it’s this: 2016 will be the year of the Islamists.

It doesn’t take a Las Vegas handicapper to know it. The State Department’s annual report on terrorism revealed that the number of people killed by terror attacks rose by 80 percent, to nearly 33,000, in 2014. Things weren’t any better in 2015.

This will be the year of the Islamists because they’re facing no competing force. No opponents with the will to fight them — or their ideas. And it’s not just the people of Middle East and Africa who will suffer in this year of the Islamists. It will be Europeans and Americans.

It happened late last year in San Bernardino. And the month before in Paris. And earlier the year before in Paris, when Islamic radicals targeted the creatives at Charlie Hebdo and the patrons and workers at a nearby kosher deli.

These weren’t spectacular mass murders of the 9/11 variety, but they were, in some ways, worse — because they were carried out by lone Islamist wolves, part of a loose network of international killers who report to no one.

A Stronger Congress, a Healthier Republic By Sen.Mike Lee (R-Ut) & Rep.Jeb Hensarling (TX District 5)

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

— Article I, Section 1, U.S. Constitution

The federal government is broken. And while there is plenty of blame to go around, only Congress can fix it.

We don’t mean this as an indictment of any one leader or party, because the dysfunction in Washington today has accreted over decades, under Houses, Senates, and presidents of every partisan combination, as well as the many different justices of the Supreme Court.

To be sure, not every misguided, dysfunctional federal policy is a direct act of Congress. But that points toward the root problem.

The stability and moral legitimacy of America’s governing institutions depend on a representative, transparent, and accountable Congress to make its laws. For years, however, Congress has delegated too much of its legislative authority to the executive branch, skirting the thankless work and ruthless accountability that Article 1 demands and taking up a new position as backseat drivers of the republic.

So today, Americans’ laws are increasingly written by people other than their representatives in the House and Senate, and via processes specifically designed to exclude public scrutiny and input. This arrangement benefits well-connected insiders who thrive in less-accountable modes of policymaking, but it does so at the expense of the American people — for whose freedom our system of separated powers was devised in the first place.

Obama’s Growing Conflict of Interest in the Clinton E-Mail Scandal By Andrew C. McCarthy

The latest revelations regarding Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information are stunning. For example, several of the former secretary of state’s “private” e-mails contain national-defense information so sensitive that it is classified at the highest levels.

Moreover, classified information so pervades the thousands of pages of e-mails communicated through and stored on Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured, homebrew server system that the court-ordered disclosure process has ground to a halt. Remember, Mrs. Clinton reviewed her e-mails before finally surrendering them to the State Department, and she initially insisted there was no classified information in them. Now, it turns out they were so threaded with classified information that the State Department and intelligence agencies have fallen hopelessly behind the court’s disclosure schedule: The task of reviewing the e-mails and redacting the portions whose publication could harm national security has proved much more complicated than anticipated. Thousands of remaining e-mails, and any embarrassing lapses they contain, will be withheld from voters until well into primary season.

So egregious have the scandal’s latest developments been that a critical State Department admission from last week has received almost no coverage: Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them.

The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials.

Think about what this means. Not only is it obvious that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business over her private e-mail account, the exchanges the president engaged in with his secretary of state over this unsecured system clearly involved sensitive issues of policy. Clinton was being asked for “advice and counsel” — not about her recommendations for the best country clubs in Martha’s Vineyard, but about matters that the White House judges too sensitive to reveal.

Advice to Germans on dealing with immigrants harassing their daughters: “Don’t provoke them” Andrew Bolt

In Germany, some extraordinary advice is given to locals on how to live with the 1.1 million illegal immigrants allowed into the country last year:A German town hall meeting turns angry when the local mayor suggests that the easiest way for young girls to avoid Muslim harassment is “don’t provoke them and don’t walk in these areas”:

“It’s technically not necessary for the girls to walk near the refugee shelters, there are alternative routes,” mayor Jens Muller continued, amid rising fury.

More news on the invasion of Europe here.

Two stories from Austria that add up to an underclass and future trouble – and not just in Austria.

Story one:

Compared to the beginning of 2015, the total population has increased by nearly 115,000 people… This increase was most pronounced among Syrians (plus 21,800), Afghans (18,300) and Iraqis (10,000).

Story two:

There has been a further rise in the number of unemployed in Austria, with official figures showing a 3.7 percent increase compared to one year ago… Unemployment among foreigners increased by 17 percent, mainly due to the number of unemployed refugees. 58,000 unemployed foreigners live in Vienna.

“What is it with the Left and Jews? What is it with the Left and pandering to Islamists?”

As the popular Aussie conservative columnist Andrew Bolt writes in his syndicated column today regarding the Australian Labor Party (ALP):

“The modern Left seems to have a Jew problem. The obsession with Jews even within Labor is extraordinary – and ominous.

What is it with the Left and Jews? What is it with the Left and pandering to Islamists?”

Mr Bolt quotes from a sobering piece on the subject by Sharri Markson in The Australian newspaper, showing the Left faction of the ALP is so saturated now in leftist/Islamist bias against Israel as to be aiding and abetting that old demon, slumbering since the Shoah and now belligerently wide awake: Jew-hatred.

Ms Markson wrote, inter alia:

‘…. The NSW ALP international relations policy committee chairman Michael Forshaw told The Australian yesterday that 39 resolutions had been received concerning Israel and Palestine, compared with 17 resolutions dealing with other international issues, such as the Syrian war, the Myanmar junta, Paris terror bombings, China free trade and foreign aid.

There were none on Saudi Arabia or Iran.

There are moves to recognise Palestinian statehood and to boycott products from Israel that originate in settlement areas, and many concerning banning trips to Israel while Benjamin Netan­yahu is Prime Minister. The move by Labor is partly driven by political motivations to secure the vote from Muslim communities in marginal southwest Sydney seats…..’

She cites the main offenders, and their thraldom to the Muslim vote.

She reminds the reader of the ‘incendiary remarks’ (Jewish advocacy groups are “cancerous” and “malicious” and try to “deny, misinform and scaremonger”) made by NSW Labor politician Shaoquett Moselmane, who felt comfortable enough broadcasting … anti-semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament’ despite having ‘ ironically decried racism’ in his maiden speech:

‘He was not shouted-out of the high office he holds for racist commentary. On the contrary, Labor continues to support him and Moselmane is now a vocal advocate behind a push to ban Labor MPs from visiting Israel on trips funded by Jewish organisations…

Who Can Believe Mahmoud Abbas? by Bassam Tawil

As Hamas’s power increases, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its security services are gradually losing their control of the West Bank.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians know that if the PA falls, the best case scenario is that Hamas will take over the West Bank. The worst case scenario is a welcome mat for ISIS.

After Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas threatened yet again that he would end security coordination with Israel, not only has he not ended it, but — luckily for him, as it turned out — it is now stronger than ever. The Israelis, it seems, exposed two separate Hamas networks in the West Bank, both of them planning a mass-casualty attack on Israel and the destruction of the rule of Mahmoud Abbas.

Mahmoud Abbas’s other threat, that he will dissolve the Palestinian Authority (PA), and force Israel to fill the resulting vacuum and incorporate its residents and territories into Israel, also turned out to be cow plop.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians know that if the Palestinian Authority falls, the best case scenario is that Hamas will take over the West Bank, and the worst case scenario is a welcome mat for ISIS. The West Bank will either turn into an Islamic emirate, like the Gaza Strip, or another ISIS province. In both cases, whatever “achievements” the Palestinian Authority has made will be gone forever. The entire Palestinian national consensus government, including Mahmoud Abbas and his cronies, will be executed before the day is out and all the property they have amassed over the years will be distributed as spoils to the victor.

Mahmoud Abbas is fully aware that the last thing the West wants is yet another Islamic emirate. Many inhabitants of the West Bank are also fearful of falling victim to the Islamic religious fanatics who will set them fourteen hundred years back.

Sheltering ‘Refugees’ Will Cost Germany $55 Billion This Year and Next By Michael van der Galien

Sheltering “refugees” (and invaders) from the Middle East will cost Europe dearly. Not only will the Continent’s beautiful cultures be fundamentally transformed by the newcomers who don’t share our values, they will also cost us tens of billions of dollars.

In Germany alone, the “immigration” crisis will cost German taxpayers $55 billion in the coming two years, the Institute for the German Institute for Economic Research has calculated. According to the institute, total costs for this year will be $25 billion. That’s shocking all right, but it’ll get even worse: Berlin will have to spend as much as $30 billion on the immigrants in 2017.

That’s $55 billion in total and we’re not even taking the years afterwards into consideration.

The most terrifying aspect of this news is that the German government did not take these extra costs into account for its budget. Berlin would have a surplus of $18 billion this year (which would be a one-time godsend), but that surplus will now change into a $7 billion deficit. Add to that the $30 billion refugee costs in 2017, and the Germans have a massive budget gap of $37 billion. The institute projects that Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble will have to take out billions of dollars in loans — loans future generations will have to pay off.