ANTI-SEMITISM Comments turned off

Robert Fulford: Mattel thinks hijab Barbie is cute and progressive. It’s not The hijab is more than a way of dressing. It’s a symbol that often stands for an array of social customs and regulations

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

In a burst of bogus feminism and commercial ambition, Mattel Inc., the global doll-maker, has announced that in 2018 it will market a Barbie doll wearing a hijab. Barbie dolls rarely impinge on political and social issues but this one is so unsettling that it evokes a wide range of responses.

We have to understand that Mattel likes to believe Barbie dolls positively influence the feelings of girls and help to point them toward the possibilities of adult life. That’s a self-justifying idea that runs through the company’s bloodstream. It suggests that Mattel serves a social purpose while selling its products.

After all, Barbies aren’t just princesses and wonder women. You can buy Barbies wearing practical clothing for offices, “chic summer suits” and camel-hair coats. This is Mattel’s bow to feminists who believe little girls should be discouraged from dwelling on fantasies of the future: they should learn, as soon as possible, the truth about what they are likely to become.

For girls with higher aspirations, you can get Barbies clothed in a cocktail dress, a classic black dress, or an Oscar de la Renta ball gown. One Barbie has a Hudson’s Bay jacket and another displays an Andy Warhol painting on the front of her dress.

Attached to the news about the hijab Barbie is a line from Mattel about “Continuing to inspire girls to be anything.” Girls are to become whatever their desires and talents can make them. Elsewhere, such as in admiring quotations from Glamour magazine in the Mattel publicity, the same idea appears.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Why did Flynn lie and why did Mueller charge him with lying? By Alan M. Dershowitz

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.

Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East.
As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today.

Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn’t been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude — a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades — it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up By Tom Fitton

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

Richard Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch’s lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

With Flynn’s guilty plea, is it Trump impeachment time yet?Cass R. Sunstein See note please

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

The oh so reasonable professor is married to corrupt Obama UN Ambassador Samantha Power who has yet to credibly explain her record unmasking of Trump campaign officials. She set a record as a hack for the Obama administration….rsk
The Founders would be concerned if Trump won with help from a foreign nation on unfriendly terms with the U.S. But we don’t have the facts yet.

Talk of impeaching President Trump surged after Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser and transition aide, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. But what is the real meaning of the Constitution’s mysterious provision authorizing removal of the president and other federal officials for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”? Is the growing interest in impeachment simply wishful thinking by Trump’s political opponents?

Before we get to current events, let’s insist on a principle of political neutrality.

Under the Constitution, presidents have four-year terms. It’s not legitimate to call for impeachment simply because you abhor the president or think that he is making terrible blunders.

If you are inclined to think that he has committed an impeachable act, you should immediately ask yourself: Would I also think that if I voted for him and thought he was doing a terrific job?

ISRAEL Comments turned off

The 2017 Tel Aviv Jazz Festival celebrates 100 years of Ella, Monk, Billie and more

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

While the Red Sea Jazz Festival gives August a jazzy rep, Tel Aviv & Jerusalem haven taken the cake in making December the unofficial month of jazz. Just as the Jerusalem Jazz Festival draws to a close, Tel Aviv Cinematheque (in conjunction with Zappa Tel Aviv & Zappa Herzliya) has packed an impressive schedule of 20 performers from Israel and abroad, including: Ester Rada, Daniel Jobim, Dee Alexander, and the famed Ravi Coltrane.

With original productions, live shows, free performances (every evening outside the Cinematheque), and tributes to the greats, the Tel Aviv Jazz Festival is the best way to ring in the winter.

MEDIA Comments turned off

ABC News Suspends Brian Ross After Disastrous Flynn Report By Debra Heine

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

In the wake of his botched exclusive about Michael Flynn, Brian Ross has been suspended without pay for four weeks, effective immediately, ABC News announced Saturday.

The network said in a statement that Ross’ report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”

The statement added: “It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience. These are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.”

.@ABC News statement on Michael Flynn report: https://t.co/sd9TeFiiLQ pic.twitter.com/UtHFHeuwcM
— ABC News (@ABC) December 2, 2017

Ross, ABC’s chief investigative correspondent, reported on Friday that Flynn would testify that then-candidate Trump had directed him to contact the Russians about foreign policy during the campaign — causing a media firestorm and stock markets to plummet.

The implication that the president had done something improper or possibly illegal during the campaign led to wild speculation throughout the day Friday that the president was about to be impeached.

ABC first “clarified,” then corrected Ross’s report, saying Flynn would testify that Trump’s directive had actually come after the election (when contact with foreign governments by a new administration is standard procedure).

Several hours after the initial report, Ross himself appeared on “World News Tonight” to offer a “clarification.”

“David, a clarification tonight on something one of Flynn’s confidants told us and we reported earlier today,” Ross said at the end of his “World News Tonight” story. “He said the president had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign. He’s now clarifying that, saying, according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hotspots. And then after the election, the president-elect asked him–told him–to contact Russia on issues including working together to fight ISIS.” CONTINUE AT SITE

MEDIA Comments turned off

‘The View’s’ Joy Behar Wigs Out After Announcing Flynn Plea By Rick Moran

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

Introspection is not one of the left’s strong suits so I wouldn’t expect people who are oblivious to their own faults and foibles to consider the reaction of “The View’s” Joy Behar to what turned out to be the false news that General Michael Flynn would testify that he was asked to contact the Russians by Donald Trump during the campaign. (The report was based on false information broadcast by ABC’s Brian Ross. Flynn was told to contact the Russians after Trump was elected.)

Behar totally lost it, as did her audience and her co-hosts. The implication was clear: Trump was guilty of colluding with the Russians and would be impeached.

BuzzFeed:

“It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas and it’s beginning to look a lot like collusion,” said cohost Ana Navarro.

Conservative cohost Meghan McCain wasn’t so thrilled by the news, conceding it was a “good moment for Democrats,” but saying she doesn’t want the country “to become more polarized.”

“Not to be the Debbie Downer, but if this somehow leads to indictment, the country’s going to rip itself apart and it’s not good for America,” said McCain.

“It should lead to resignation,” Behar responded, to thunderous applause. “I remember Richard Nixon, and Richard Nixon stepped down, and so should Donald Trump.”

Behar said that reading about Flynn’s plea was “the antithesis of election night.” She was so, so, very sad when Donald Trump was elected but now, with the prospect of overturning that election and tearing the country apart, she is so very, very happy.

It makes you wonder if Behar would celebrate the destruction of an American city by a nuclear bomb — as long as it was the “right” city. Dallas, yes. Boston, no.

Left-wing icon Dahlia Lithwick writing in Slate wonders, “Is it too late for Robert Mueller to Save Us”? CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY, HOMELAND SECURITY Comments turned off

Congressman: Is U.S. ‘Serious’ About Going After Iranian Airline Shuttling Weapons, Terrorists? By Karl Herchenroeder

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

WASHINGTON – A gap in sanctions policy against Mahan Air, which Iran has used to traffic weapons and terrorists, has put Americans and the world in danger as the airline is freely operating in major European airports, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) told Treasury Department officials Thursday.

Mahan Air has been designated as a terrorist organization, given its support to the Assad regime in Syria. The airline, which is regarded as the Quds Force’s aviation arm, enjoys significant traffic through airports in Milan and Munich, allowing Iran to connect foreign flights to the United States.

“Why are we allowing European air carriers to start their flight at Mahan-infested airports and come to the United States?” Sherman asked during a Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade hearing. “Why are we not going after the airports, or are we serious about Mahan Air?”

While questioning Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing Marshall Billingslea and Director for the Office of Foreign Assets Control John E. Smith, Sherman asked why American companies are still doing business with airports that accommodate Mahan and why American airlines are still purchasing fuel from the same companies that deal to Mahan.

Billingslea responded that in a departure from the Obama administration, the Trump administration has been “incredibly” aggressive in trying to alter European relations with Iran. Smith noted that the Treasury Department has implemented some designations against European airlines in the past few months, most notably Ukraine International Airlines, which has discontinued some of the troublesome flights routes.

To Billingslea’s point that this administration has altered the previous approach, Sherman said that the Treasury Department is “setting a very low bar.”

“At least we cleared the bar, right?” Billingslea asked. “But I think you make a good point, and it would be very prudent for any company that transacts with Mahan Air to be exceptionally cautious going forward.”

“I don’t think they should be cautious,” Sherman said. “I think you should nail them.” CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY, HOMELAND SECURITY Comments turned off

What Will It Take to Get Serious About Missile Defense? By Angelo Codevilla

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

North Korea’s possession of mobile-launched missiles that can deliver nukes anywhere in the United States shows that, nowadays, anybody can make lots of pinpoint-accurate missiles of any range. Since America’s ICBMs, submarines, and bombers are fewer, concentrated in fewer places than ever, even North Korea can carry out the kind of disarming attack that Americans feared the Soviet Union might have mounted in the 1980s. Kim Jong-un is showing the world that the missile defense programs into which the U.S. government has poured some $80 billion in recent years are no barrier to destroying most U.S. strategic forces and holding the American people hostage.

The officials who crafted these programs, ideologically focused as they have been on not hindering Russia’s or China’s capacity to devastate America, built token defenses to suffice against unsophisticated, unserious opponents. But North Koreans, semi-starved and serious, grasped better than highly credentialed Americans how this focus makes U.S. defenses inherently vulnerable. Yet, because U.S. policy continues to be one of not having missile defense—the public’s support for it notwithstanding—the government’s response to its programs’ failure is to pour more money into them.

The Technology is Not Lacking
Since the 1960s, the government and elite opinion have obfuscated that policy by pretending that technology is lacking. Hence, support for missile defense has meant spending endlessly on expensive tokens and endless “research.” Yet, as ballistic missiles have evolved since the 1950s, America has never lacked the technical means of defending seriously against them. As Professor Joseph Constance’s magisterial work showed, Republicans and Democrats have avoided responsibility for critical choices on these matters by framing them in pseudo-technical terms, none too subtly telling the public that they are beyond ordinary people’s understanding. Nonsense.

What follows summarizes how current programs are irremediably inadequate to defend against any serious missile attack from anywhere, and what a missile defense worthy of the name requires.

The current “National Missile Defense” (NMD) system consists of a single radar/fire control system plus a maximum of 44 interceptors based mostly in Alaska that purports, or rather pretends, to defend U.S territory. This arrangement so increases the distance that the interceptors must travel and so shortens the time in which the interceptors must do it that the interceptors have to be huge. Moreover, because the system’s designers chose to require that the interceptors collide with the incoming warhead directly—without the aid of any warhead—the guidance system must be exquisite and fragile. Such requirements make these interceptors hugely expensive and doubtful of success. Current “employment doctrine” calls for devoting two interceptors to each incoming warhead. In short, this system is un-expandable.

MEDIA Comments turned off

Sarah Sanders is Above the Shame Game By Julie Kelly

Posted By on December 3rd, 2017

Mika is mad.https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/02/sarah-sanders-is-above-the-shame-game/

Mika Brzezinski, otherwise known as the future Mrs. Joe Scarborough, went ballistic Tuesday on her MSNBC morning show over comments by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who had responded to reporters’ questions about President Trump’s “Pocahontas” jibe the day before.

“What’s wrong with her? How can she do that job?” an exasperated Mika rhetorically asked the head-shaking panel. “How can she look in the mirror every day and say, ‘I am doing the right thing for the American people’ because you are not.”

Mika’s voice shook with anger. “Unbelievable. This is the president and that is the spokesperson for the president of the United States, sitting there, defending his racism. His bigoted language. His stupidity. This is where we are.”

Her sphincter-faced betrothed sat next to her, amused. But that wasn’t all. The woman who divorced her husband last year to hook up with her twice-divorced co-host amid years of cheating rumors continued to slam Sanders’ integrity:

It’s sick. The whole relationship [between Trump and Sanders] is sick. You have taken the oath. You are raising three children. Stop.

Set aside for a moment the audacity of one professional mother (Brzezinski) using the children of another professional mother (Sanders) as a way to shame her. But since Brzezinski is a liberal and Sanders is a conservative, no one bothered to call her out on it. Also set aside for a moment the fact that Mika’s tirade occurred a few days after she and her co-hosts were busted for pre-taping their Black Friday morning broadcast and passing it off as live television. This included “Truth Goddess” Mika informing viewers of how she cooked the turkey with the guts in it and how “it was still a little frozen.”

So, what got Mika mad? It was Sanders’ answer to a question from ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl, who had asked about Trump’s “offensive” taunt, directed at Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren:

I think what most people find offensive is Senator Warren lying about her heritage to advance her career.

Boom.