Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
This guy, a leftist, along with apparently dozens if not hundreds of calls from outside the country to Jewish centers, are what's causing this so called "wave of anti-Semitism" in the U.S. Honestly, it has nothing to do with the Trump administration and everything to do with Democrat Party and leftist evil.
For a president who has a uniquely hostile relationship with the press, positive news cycles are both rare and fleeting. The Trump team displayed remarkable discipline by refusing to step on the president’s well-received address to a joint session of Congress. A lot of good discipline did them. Just 24 hours after Trump’s address, a series of troubling reports involving links among those in Trump’s orbit to Russian officials reset the national discourse. Those stories make for a trend, though, that has little to do with Trump and a lot to do with his predecessor. The Obama administration’s foreign-policy team seems to be campaigning to rehabilitate itself one leak at a time, and the press is helping.
The frenzy on Wednesday night began with a revelation in the New York Times that members of Barack Obama’s administration had left a trail of breadcrumbs for investigators who happen to be looking into the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russian government. The report revealed that intelligence officials intercepted communications between Russian officials and “Trump associates,” and that the administration worked frantically in the final days to ensure those revelations could not be buried and forgotten after they left office.
More than six “former officials” described efforts to reduce the classification on some reports relating to Trump associates’ contact with Russians so they would be widely distributed. They also revealed their efforts to raise the classification level of some information related to Russia that was so sensitive they feared the Trump administration might leak it to Moscow. Some officials apparently even touted their efforts to ask leading questions during intelligence briefings so their questions would be transcribed and archived, leaving clues for congressional investigators should they ever come looking for them.
The Times report revealed that a “former senior American official” disclosed that Jeff Sessions had met with “Russian officials.” The Washington Post confirmed that Sessions took a private meeting with Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, appearing to contradict testimony Sessions provided to the Senate. The controversy whipped up around the discrepancy between Sessions’ confirmation-hearing testimony, and these reports have resulted in Democrats calling for his resignation and Republicans running for cover.
Though it received less attention amid the flurry of reports involving Team Trump’s connections to the Kremlin, the Washington Post published another story involving the decision-making process that led up to the Yemen raid. That raid, in which Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens was killed, an Osprey helicopter was lost, and up to 31 Yemeni civilians died, cannot be said to have gone according to plan. This report alleges that the plan might have been the problem.
The report quoted former advisor to Vice President Joe Biden on national security, Colin Kahl, who averred that the raid was the result of an Obama administration-era initiative expediting the approval of partnered ground operations. Yet, this raid was greenlit as a result of “a more abbreviated White House process.” Kahl took particular issue with the revelation that a sub-Cabinet level meeting on the raid—a meeting scheduled after the raid had been approved by the president and following a variety of briefings on the mission—lasted less than an hour. “You can’t cover the complexity of a topic like that in 23 minutes,” he declared. Other “former officials” quoted in that piece criticized the raid for straining relations with the Yemeni government. In sum, the Obama administration deserves all the credit for what went right in Yemen and none of the blame for what went wrong.
At least a few of these “former officials” who so freely offer reporters at the Times and the Post intimate details about the Obama administration’s approach to foreign policy are members of the infamous gang of nine. These officials within the Obama administration’s intelligence apparatus confirmed to the Post that former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn had misled Mike Pence when he said he did not discuss the Obama-era sanctions regime in his phone conversations with Kislyak. As the Times revealed last night, federal officials monitored those calls, transcribed the conversations, and related the substance to the press.
There is an assumption permeating these reports: that those unnamed Obama-era officials are selflessly sacrificing in the effort to prevent the Trump administration from undermining American national security. Some have even dedicated themselves to creating an elaborate Da Vinci Code for future scavenger hunters to decipher. More likely, the Obama administration’s foreign policy professionals are doing their best to retroactively vindicate themselves after leaving office under a cloud of mistrust. In their effort to self-aggrandize at the expense of the current administration, these rogue officials have found willing partners in the press.
The Obama administration was engaged in narrative manipulation surrounding Russia’s intervention into the election process even in its final hours...
Was former Secretary of labor and assistant attorney-general Tom Perez’s victory over Congressman Keith Ellison over the weekend in the race to serve as the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee a victory of centrist Democrats over radical leftists in the party? That is how the mainstream media is portraying Perez’s victory.
Along these lines, Prof. Allen Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who promised to quit the party if Ellison was elected due to his documented history of antisemitism and hostility toward Israel, hailed Perez’s election. Speaking to Fox News, Dershowitz said that Perez’s election over Ellison “is a victory in the war against bigotry, antisemitism, the anti-Israel push of the hard Left within the Democratic Party.”
There are two problems with Dershowitz’s view. First, Perez barely won. Ellison received nearly half the votes in two rounds of voting.
Tipping his hat to Ellison’s massive popularity among the party’s leadership and grassroots, Perez appointed the former Nation of Islam spokesman to serve as deputy DNC chairman as soon as his own victory was announced.
There is a good reason that Perez is so willing to cooperate with Ellison in running the DNC. And this points to the second problem with the claim that Perez’s election signals a move toward the center by Democratic leaders.
Perez is ready to cooperate with Ellison because the two men have the same ideological worldview and the same vision for the Democratic Party. As Mother Jones explained, “There’s truly not much ideological distance between the two.”
Far from being a victory for the centrist forces in the party, Perez’s win marks the solidification of the far Left’s control over the party of Harry Truman. Only hard leftists participated in a meaningful way in the race for leadership of the second largest party in America – a party that less than a decade ago controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
The implications of this state of affairs are disastrous for the US generally. It is inherently destabilizing for a nation when one of the parties in a two-party political system is taken over by people who have a negative view of the country.
While America as a whole will suffer from the radicalization of the Democratic Party, perhaps no group will suffer more from the far Left’s takeover of the party than the American Jewish community. The vast majority of American Jews give their partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party and their ideological allegiance to the Left.
While Perez made a name for himself by fighting the enforcement of US immigration and naturalization laws against illegal immigrants, and Ellison rose to prominence for his activism in radical African American and Islamic circles, thanks to the so-called intersectionality of the far Left, that makes the cause of one faction the cause of all factions, today Perez is as much an apologist for Israel bashers as Ellison.
Perhaps in response to the danger that the far Left’s takeover of the Democratic Party represents, Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-serving professional head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called on Sunday for the convening of a global conference on antisemitism. In a meeting with The Jerusalem Post’s editorial board, Hoenlein said that one of the goals of the proposed conference would be to reach a universally accepted definition of antisemitism...
The main reason, of course, is that leftists want to destroy Donald Trump. I don't believe there's any real increase in "hate incidents." For example, those vandalizing and terrorizing Jewish cemeteries are probably leftists. We won't know until there are some arrests. And as for the rest of the so-called "hate incidents" against Jews, every year anti-Semitic attacks top the Justice Department's hate crimes statistics. There's no new "increase." They're just being sensationalized for political gain.
We're looking at at leftist double-standard, designed to make President Trump's administration look like the coming of the Third Reich. It's despicable.
Why Were the 7,000 Antisemitic Incidents Under Obama Largely Ignored? by Seth Frantzman https://t.co/vjFkrkBDTd
My proprietary Pearson education REVEL webpage was down for a while yesterday, which sucked because it was exam day.
Don't know if it was related to the Amazon cloud service crash, but not good either way. (And my school's email web application is down at this moment. Again, don't know if it's related, but hundreds of websites were affected by the crash.)
Jones is one of those far-leftists who has his flashes of clarity and brutal honesty, and last night was one of those times. And he's right: That was the moment. It was Trump's supreme moment. When the country saw Carryn Owens, the widow of Navy SEAL William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed in the recent Yemen military raid, this administration's "presidential" moment hit home. And you can't take that away from President Trump. That's what Van Jones says. And if you were watching last night, some of the other best moments were when the cameras panned across the bitter, visceral stone-cold hateful faces of defeated Democrats. Frankly, I think they're still in shock from November, and when Trump clearly stuck to script and hit massively bipartisan points that couldn't not be applauded, the reality of political grimness for the Democrats came into even sharper focus. (It's a glorious time to be conservative, man.)
Van Jones says we may very well have this president for 8 years, and that's what I'm hoping for. That's what I'm praying for. And that's what I'll be working for, to the best and hardest of my ability. President Trump, more than any time I can recall, proved that he's the man we need for this country at this moment in history. It was freakin' beautiful.
My ultimate goal of all this reading on Native American history and the frontier West is to have a sound basis of rebuttal against the hateful leftists in my department who are expanding the curriculum, quite dramatically, to include Latin American and Indigenous studies. I'm not against that. What I'm against is one-sided indoctrination, which according to more than a few students, is quite rampant on my campus.
So, while I enjoy reading the general histories and more specialized (polemical and leftist) studies, my main hope is to develop my own curriculum and syllabi for courses on race, class, gender, and culture, because these things are coming down the pipeline ready or not. It's best practice to be able to serve all of our student demographics, not just the far-left, non-white constituencies who are being taught leftist revolutionary doctrines and hate-America ideologies.
America’s founders—both its leaders and those protesting in the streets and fighting the British Army—saw immigrants as vital to the mission of the fledgling nation. The Declaration of Independence accused King George III of “obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners” and refusing “to encourage their migrations” into the colonies. To the Founders, the king’s restrictions on immigration were evidence of his desire to keep the colonies backward and under his thumb. In the newly independent United States, they firmly believed, immigration would accelerate economic development and help the country become a player among the powerful empires of Europe.
As A. Roger Ekirch’s deeply researched and elegantly written “American Sanctuary” reveals, early Americans saw the United States as a sanctuary for people oppressed by the old tyrannical governments of Europe. Refugees were the ideal citizens for a republic: Having fled tyranny, they would be a bulwark against it. And they came. Nearly 100,000 Europeans immigrated to the United States in the 1790s, a dramatic addition to a population that was just under four million at the start of the decade.
But when the French Revolution turned radical in the 1790s, some Americans began to worry. They feared that French as well as Irish immigrants would drag the new, still-fragile country into anarchy. Harrison Otis, a congressman from Massachusetts, gave a speech in which he railed that he did “not wish to invite hoards of wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all parts of the world, to come here with a view to disturb our tranquility.” South Carolina Rep. Robert Goodloe Harper proposed getting rid of naturalized citizenship altogether. And from the beginning Congress limited naturalized citizenship to any “free white person.”
The war that broke out in 1793 between Britain and revolutionary France sparked the first great divide in American politics. Thomas Jefferson and others supported France, grateful for its help in defeating Britain in the American Revolution and for following the United States into revolution itself. But other Americans, including John Adams and George Washington, were aghast at French revolutionaries’ use of the guillotine and the Bastille. After Washington’s administration negotiated a treaty with the British in 1794 that struck supporters of France as too cozy, New Yorkers threw rocks at Alexander Hamilton. Some congressmen even talked of impeaching Washington.
Into this fractious debate about the place of the United States in the world came the bloodiest mutiny in the history of the British navy—a mutiny that forced Americans to decide if the country was truly a haven for lovers of liberty, even those who had killed for its sake.
Probably half of the HMS Hermione’s diverse crew had been “impressed”—meaning that the British navy had forced them from non-British private merchant ships into British service. On one day alone in 1795, sailors from the Hermione boarded 20 American ships, took nearly 70 crewmen (most of whom claimed American citizenship) and forced them into the British navy. On most ships of the era, impressed sailors grumbled but did not mutiny, but circumstances combined with the revolutionary times and a particularly cruel captain to push the Hermione’s crew over the edge. On the night of Sept. 21, 1797, off the coast of Puerto Rico, several of the crew charged into the captain’s cabin, brandishing swords and axes. After killing him, crew members searched the ship and killed all 10 officers.
Mr. Ekirch’s gripping and timely book both conveys the drama of this long-forgotten mutiny and reveals its importance to the early American republic. The first part of “American Sanctuary” tells the story of the mutiny, and the rest of the book traces the crisis it prompted—specifically when some of the mutineers from the HMS Hermione fled to the United States. Would Americans side with rebels against British tyranny, or with the rule of law on the high seas? Would the United States turn its back on Thomas Paine’s charge in “Common Sense” to be “an asylum for mankind” by extraditing mutineers to Britain?
The man that put all of these questions to the test called himself Jonathan Robbins. A little over a year after the mutiny, an American schooner docked at the port of Charleston with Robbins aboard. He had reportedly bragged to his shipmates that he had been one of the mutineers on the now-infamous Hermione. Charleston officials put him in jail, where an officer who had served on the Hermione prior to the mutiny visited him and declared that the man in the cell was in fact Thomas Nash, one of the mutiny’s leaders. After the British consul in Charleston requested the man’s extradition for court-martial, U.S. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams determined that this was a simple case of mutiny and murder on a British ship. With their approval, the man calling himself Robbins was handed over to British justice.
Remember how I've been saying that indigenous studies are the hippest of the far-left disciplines right now? Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is a revolutionary Marxist, and I suspect she's pretty much a model for those working in the genre.
Readers might recall how George Ciccariello-Maher got in trouble a while back for tweeting "All I want for Christmas is white genocide."
Forsyth County, Georgia, at the turn of the twentieth century was home to a large African American community that included ministers and teachers, farmers and field hands, tradesmen, servants, and children. Many black residents were poor sharecroppers, but others owned their own farms and the land on which they’d founded the county’s thriving black churches. But then in September of 1912, three young black laborers were accused of raping and murdering a white girl. One man was dragged from a jail cell and lynched on the town square, two teenagers were hung after a one-day trial, and soon bands of white “night riders” launched a coordinated campaign of arson and terror, driving all 1,098 black citizens out of the county. In the wake of the expulsions, whites harvested the crops and took over the livestock of their former neighbors, and quietly laid claim to “abandoned” land. The charred ruins of homes and churches disappeared into the weeds, until the people and places of black Forsyth were forgotten. National Book Award finalist Patrick Phillips tells Forsyth’s tragic story in vivid detail and traces its long history of racial violence all the way back to antebellum Georgia. Recalling his own childhood in the 1970s and ’80s, Phillips sheds light on the communal crimes of his hometown and the violent means by which locals kept Forsyth “all white” well into the 1990s. Blood at the Root is a sweeping American tale that spans the Cherokee removals of the 1830s, the hope and promise of Reconstruction, and the crushing injustice of Forsyth’s racial cleansing. With bold storytelling and lyrical prose, Phillips breaks a century-long silence and uncovers a history of racial terrorism that continues to shape America in the twenty-first century.
The altercation on the tidy, suburban street in Anaheim apparently began with a complaint common in many neighborhoods: a group of teenagers walking through a neighbor’s yard on their way home from school.
But this seemingly mundane dispute spun out of control on West Palais Road on Tuesday when authorities say an off-duty Los Angeles police officer confronted the group. Other teenagers pulled out their cameras, filming the officer as he held a 13-year-old boy by the collar of his sweatshirt, trying to detain him.
The situation quickly escalated from there. At one point, another teen rushed the officer, sending him tumbling over a line of bushes. The officer then reached into his jeans and drew a gun, firing a single shot.
No one was hurt by the gunfire, which Anaheim police said was aimed at the ground. But footage of the encounter stirred uproar across the country, prompting criticism of the off-duty cop’s actions and questions over why investigators arrested two teenagers — but not the officer — at the scene.
As the video went viral Wednesday, more than 300 protesters took to the streets to protest the shooting. Police broke up the demonstration and arrested 23 people, but not before some vandalized the officer’s home.
The tension in Orange County’s largest city comes after several incidents in recent years in which Latino activists have protested police shootings that they felt unfairly targeted the city’s large Latino community. Many of the teens involved in Tuesday’s incident appeared to be Latino, and the officer appears to be white.
On Thursday, officials from both Anaheim and Los Angeles scrambled to calm the public’s concern.
“Like many, I am deeply disturbed and frankly angered by what it shows,” Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait said about the footage of the incident. “The video shows an adult wrestling with a 13-year-old kid and ultimately firing a gun. … It should never have happened.”
Anaheim police are investigating the altercation itself while the Los Angeles Police Department and Inspector General are conducting internal investigations into the officer’s actions.
The Los Angeles Police Commission will ultimately decide whether the officer violated any LAPD rules during the encounter.
“I am very interested in knowing the facts of the incident based on the investigation by the department and the Office of Inspector General that is underway,” said commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill. “Some of the actions — brief as that exchange caught on video may be — do not properly represent what I believe should be expected and reflected by a member of the Los Angeles Police Department when engaging members of the public, be it on-duty or off-duty.”
The officer, whose name has not been released by authorities, was removed from the field, which is standard protocol after shootings by LAPD officers.
An attorney representing the officer, Larry Hanna, declined to discuss the encounter in detail, citing the ongoing investigations. He also declined to name his client or describe his work with the LAPD, saying he was concerned for his safety.
“All of this will come out,” he said. “I just think that people should let the investigators do their job.”
The union representing rank-and-file LAPD officers came out strongly against those who criticized the officer’s action...
The vote for the new Democrat Party chair is due any moment, and my money's on Keith Ellison. What a joy it will be when he's selected. Talk about sealing the party's fate, heh.
This dude Godswill Forche, who's on Twitter, nails it:
A year ago, Donald Trump skipped the nation’s preeminent conference of conservatives, underscoring the friction between the populist candidate and many of the warring factions in his party during a heated presidential primary season.
Friday, Trump returned to the Conservative Political Action Conference with the blunt force of a conqueror, planting his brand of nationalist, anti-globalist populism like a flag.
His speech, with rhetoric that even Trump said would have been too controversial at the event even a year ago, marked his takeover of the conservative movement, one of several signs of his dominance throughout the conference, which also featured a rare and well-received speech from his chief intellectual influence and advisor, Stephen K. Bannon.
"There is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency or a global flag," Trump said to great applause from thousands of conservatives. "I'm not representing the globe. I'm representing your country."
He echoed ideas he has espoused in the past — denouncing trade deals as the antithesis of "economic freedom," warning that Paris and other great cities of Europe have been ruined by mass immigration, criticizing Democratic and Republican presidents for their interventions in the Middle East.
Although many of the words were familiar, the venue and the passion made Friday's speech remarkable.
Trump spoke directly of his ambition to turn the GOP into "the party of the American worker."
"I'm here today to tell you what this movement means for the future of the Republican Party and for the future of America," Trump said. "The core conviction of our movement is that we are a nation that [must] put and will put its own citizens first."
While Trump tried to unite conservatives, the speech made little effort to bridge the country's larger political divide. For example, Trump dismissed people who have shown up at town halls around the country to protest reversal of Obamacare.
"They're not you. They're largely — many of them are the side that lost," he said.
The visuals around the waterfront conference outside Washington were just as striking: the red “Make America Great Again” caps, the throngs of college Republicans surrounding Trump’s aides and allies, the giant Trump-decorated pickup truck at the convention center entrance.
As he has repeatedly done in the last couple of weeks, Trump attacked the media for what he sees as unfair coverage. He also showed how much he remembers the details of how his campaign was described in the press, at one point praising The Times for its election tracking poll that consistently showed him leading.
“I must say Los Angeles Times did a great job — shocking,” he said. “A couple polls got it right.”
In reality, the USC Dornsife/L.A. Times “Daybreak” tracking poll overstated Trump’s support, although it did correctly pick up the backing he was getting from disaffected white voters, many of whom had sat out the 2012 election.
Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, an outlet that has presented itself as a voice of the white nationalist alt-right movement, joked a day earlier as he sat down for a marquee event about how far he had come.
He used to hold a competing event called “Uninvited” for conservatives whose philosophies were considered too radical for the conference, Bannon said at a panel featuring him and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
Bannon reveled in his newfound influence as the conference organizer interviewed him in front of thousands of people.
He praised Priebus, the former GOP chairman, another indication of how the mainstream of the party has come into Trump’s fold. But both men made clear that Bannon was the dominant force in shaping Trump’s vision.
Bannon spoke about defending his notion of American culture and lashed out against the “corporatist, globalist media” standing in the way of Trump’s “economic nationalist agenda.”
“If you think they're going to give you your country back without a fight," he said. "You are sadly mistaken.”
“We're at the top of the first inning of this,” Bannon said near the end of his remarks. “We want you to have our back.”
Conference organizers seemed to have gotten the message.
Breitbart News owns the first booth by the entrance of the convention hall, hawking “Border Wall Construction Company” T-shirts...
I think folks should just tune it out, live life. Read a book or something. Go to the movies. Go swimming. Have a glass of wine and talk to your kids. Sheesh. I teach politics for a living. I know there's lots more to life than stressing over the president.
It's no enemies on the left for Democrats. The late Tom Hayden was a traitor and Democrat (I repeat myself) who traveled to Hanoi with Jane Fonda to support the Communist North Vietnamese over the the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam. California Senate Democrats weren't going to allow an elected Republican, and a refugee from the war, to say a honest word about their comrade.
I and the children of the former South Vietnam soldiers will never forget the support of former Senator Tom Hayden for the Communist government of Vietnam and the oppression by the Communist Government of Vietnam for the people of Vietnam.
After 40 years, the efforts by people like him have hurt the people of Vietnam and have worked to stop the Vietnamese refugees from coming to the United States, a free country. We will always continue to fight for freedom and human rights for the people of Vietnam.
Members, I recognize today in memory of the million of Vietnamese and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees who died seeking freedom and democracy. I recognize that on Tuesday you had an opportunity to honor Senator Tom Hayden. With all due respect, I would like to offer another historical perspective.
On Tuesday, instead of participating, I chose to step out of the chamber out of respect to his family, his friends and to you. In contrast to your comments on Tuesday, I want to share what Senator Hayden meant to me and to the over 500,000 Vietnamese Americans who call California their home, as well as to the over 1 million Vietnamese Americans across the United States.
As you may be aware, Tom Hayden chose to work directly with the Communist North Vietnamese Government to oppose the efforts of United States forces in South Vietnam.
Mr. Hayden sided with a communist government that enslaved and/or killed millions of Vietnamese, including members of my own family. Mr. Hayden’s actions are viewed by many as harmful to democratic values and hateful towards those who sought the very freedoms on which this nation is founded.
Were it not for the efforts of the thousands of men and women who served bravely in the United States military and the South Vietnamese military, as well as the efforts of millions of Vietnamese citizens who resisted the communists, I would not be standing here on this Senate floor humbly representing the residents of the 34th District.
In addition to the sacrifices made during war, the efforts of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s allowed many Vietnamese like me to seek refuge in the United States.
In contrast to the great many people who fought to defend freedom and democracy, Mr. Hayden supported a Communist agenda and traveled to North Vietnam during the war.
He believed that those who protested the human-rights violations of the Communists were tools of the CIA. It is known that he believed that the war was a conflict between Imperialism, led by the United States and the “free” people of North Vietnam. Former Senator Hayden was profoundly wrong in his support of the Communists.
Members, to this day, the government of Vietnam continues to violate the basic human rights of its citizens. They systematically continue to oppress freedoms of expression, religion and assembly and incarcerate those who speak out for freedom and democracy.
Thank you for allowing me to make my comments. I proudly stand before you as a Vietnamese-American who appreciates the freedoms that so many around the world do not enjoy.
