Anti-Semitism IS NOT Increasing! The ADL’s Big Lie

(Jump to new material) First, here are the two articles by David Bernstein Dennis Prager is reading from:

  • Has There Been a Surge of Anti-Semitism Under and Because of Trump? || In short, probably not. And about that ADL study everyone is citing… (REASON.org)
  • Correcting the ADL’s False Anti-Semitism Statistic || The spread of misleading information on hate crimes is counterproductive in the fight against real and rising anti-Semitism (TABLET MAGAZINE)

Dennis Prager is livid at the lies (The Fake News) we are “bathed in” on a daily basis. This is a great segment to pair with an earlier upload of mine, titled: “Antisemitism In America ~ #FakeNews” (DENNIS PRAGER).

TABLE MAG:

The ADL also reports that “college campuses saw a total of 204 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016.” How many of these incidents were of the alt-right nationalist variety, and how many were related to leftist anti-Israel activism? There is no way of knowing from the ADL study, but to the extent the latter was the cause, that could hardly be blamed on Trump.

Finally, it’s worth noting, that despite showing a 57 percent increase in incidents overall, from 1,267 to 1,986, the ADL study shows a 47 percent decrease in physical assaults, from 37 to 19. This is obviously inconsistent with the meme that 2017 saw a surge in violent anti-Semitism. Physical assaults are also the most objective sort of incident to document, which adds to concerns about the robustness of the rest of the data.

[….]

I have no desire to let Trump off the hook for his very real flaws, and I am not nor have I been a Trump supporter or apologist. But the Jewish community’s assessment of the dangers of anti-Semitism should be based on documented facts, not ideology, emotion, partisanship, or panic. And the truth is this: The claim that anti-Semitic incidents increased 57 percent in 2017 is contradicted by the very ADL study on which that claim is based.

REASON.org:

Those who wish to blame Trump have an ace in the hole, an Anti-Defamation League study that purports to show an almost 60 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, which is implicitly blamed on Trump. This study has been cited on over and over in response to Pittsburgh.

There are several problems with relying on this study for Trump-bashing, however. The first is that the study includes 193 incidents of bomb threats to Jewish institutions as anti-Semitic incidents, even though by the time the ADL published the study, it had been conclusively shown that the two perpetrators of the bomb threats were not motivated by anti-Semitism. One can only guess why the ADL chose to inflate its statistics in this way, but none of the explanations speak well of it.

Second, the ADL report itself acknowledges that some of the rise in incidents may simply be due to better reporting (“more people are reporting incidents to ADL than ever before”).

Third, “college campuses saw a total of 204 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016.” How many of those incidents emanating from traditional forms of anti-Semitism that one might associate with Trumpian populism, and how many from leftist/pro-Palestinian sources? The ADL doesn’t say.

Fourth, the ADL counts ambiguous incidents as anti-Semitic incidents, so long as they were reported as such. For example, the report states, “Jewish graves or cemeteries were desecrated seven times in 2017. The desecration of Jewish headstones is a classic anti-Semitic act employed for hundreds of years. The majority of the cemetery desecrations occurred in the first months of the year, at the same time as the bomb threats were called in to Jewish institutions, which contributed to a sense that the Jewish American community was under siege.” The problem is that desecrations of cemeteries of all faiths is not uncommon, and are often the product of either bored teenagers or vagrants. In fact, at least some of the cemetery incidents counted by the ADL were ultimately determined by police not to be anti-Semitic in origin. The desecraton of a cemetery in St. Louis got a particularly large amount of attention. The police eventually caught the perpetrator, and determined that he was just “mad and drunk,” not anti-Semitic. The ADL has not updated its study or press release to reflect such facts. Other questionable “anti-Semitic” incidents I’ve seen reported include graffitti with a swastika and “TRUMP.” Is the “author” supporting “Trump the Nazi” or attacking Trump by accusing him of being a Nazi? My inclination would in most cases be to suspect the latter, but surely it’s at least unclear….


NEW STUFF


AMERICAN GREATNESS has an excellent rebuff of David French’s recent article claiming “white supremacy” is growing thanks to us honkies.

But David French at National Review has other post-election targets in mind—namely, the imaginary cabal of white supremacists taking over the Republican Party.

Outlandish Claims, Distorted Evidence
French’s November 15 column, “The White-Supremacy Surge,” is more cowbell to amplify the media’s nonstop drumbeat that Donald Trump and his supporters are bigots, anti-Semites, and neo-Nazis. (A despicable Washington Post column over the weekend suggested that massacres and death squads might be in the offing because of Trump.)

Sadly, French’s incendiary analysis wasn’t far from that Post screed. It is a literary junk drawer of anecdotal evidence and conjecture scattered with overworn insults about Trump supporters.

In an attempt to boost his inaccurate claim that white supremacy is surging, French cited a sketchy study while overlooking exculpatory data in the very same report, and he mentioned random racial crimes that are vile but no indicator of a coordinated white supremacist movement. “Trump’s words have emboldened white supremacists,” French outlandishly declared, again without evidence.

In an effort to prove his case, French conflated a rise in white supremacy with a speculative rise in hate crimes. According to a May 2018 report from California State University’s Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism—the paper French cites in his column—hate crimes increased by 12 percent in 2017 in 10 major cities. (The report documents the number of allegations, not convictions, reported to police. Dr. Brian Levin, one of the authors, confirmed to me via email that the center’s data “cover hate crimes reported to police at time complaint is made and is not dependent on how it is eventually charged.”)

A closer look at the statistics included in the report not only fails to bolster French’s claim, the data show that whites are the third-most frequently targeted group of victims, after black and LGBT people. Jews, Mexicans, and Muslims are less likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a white person, according to the study. Further—and highly relevant here—there is no proof that white supremacists committed most of the offenses noted in the study.

Then this: “We are forecasting a small to moderate increase for hate crime for 2017. Only a small number of agencies have partial year data for 2018, but most are down significantlywe are forecasting a significant national decrease in 2018 but only for the first half of the year.” (Emphasis added.)

So, despite the hysterical warnings from French and his collaborators in the media, there was only a small increase in hate crimes last year and those numbers dropped significantly in the first half of the year. This means there is no “surge” either in hate crimes or white supremacy. (The synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh last month singularly will change that forecast for the year. Trump also has been blamed for that massacre by French’s NR colleague, Jonah Goldberg, even though the shooter did not vote for Trump and criticized the president for being “surrounded by kikes.”)

[….]

He slammed Breitbart and The Federalist for allegedly endorsing white supremacy. (The author of the Federalistpiece he misrepresents is Jewish.) Non church-going Trump voters are closet racists, French concluded, because not enough of them have “warm feelings” for blacks, according to one survey: “The white-supremacist surge is a symptom of a greater disease, and it’s a disease with no easy cure.”

[….]

A greater threat to civil society, in reality, is contemptible pieces of writing like French’s, which are intended to malign innocent people based on race and political affiliation, and further divide the country he laughably claims to want to save.

 

 

 

Washington Post Headlines Show Bias

NEWSBUSTERS has info on this 200,134th example of media bias:

The Sayoc headline read “Bomb Suspect Outspoken Supporter of Trump.” Wallace said that the headline really surprised him as he expected the headline to read “Suspect Arrested.” A closer inspection of the article finds that it does not even mention that Sayoc was the bombing suspect until the fourth paragraph.

Rather, the first three paragraphs read like a psychological profile of Sayoc, talking about his support for President Trump and all of the stickers on his van plus a quote from one of his former employers; who described him as “crazed.”

On the other hand, the headline after the Scalise shooting read “Congressman Shot in Va,” which clearly didn’t mention shooter James Hodgkinson’s supporter for Bernie Sanders. The front page article did not mention his support for Sanders but footnoted that his social media posts were “highly critical of President Trump and other Republican leaders.”

Even an article from The Guardian written on the day of the Scalise shooting was able to point out Hodgkinson’s political leanings. The Guardian article read: “Virginia Shooting: gunman was leftwing activist with record of domestic violence.” Yet, The Post, which brands itself as a nonpartisan guardian of democracy, could not bear to mention at least that much in its headline

See more at RUSH LIMBAUGH’S site.

Jake Tapper Put Into Detention (Mark Levin)

  • Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency’s custody on April 29, according to the Washington Postspokesman for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families told
  • In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones.

(Via NEWSWEEK, with a h/t to DAILY WIRE)

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article titled,

  • “Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing” (dated: March 11, 2015)

 Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment.

His intelligence analysts estimated that 78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18 — teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught — and he wanted to attack this loophole.

“Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.

Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge.

During their detention, they are questioned by U.S. authorities and then transferred to a network of facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, across 15 states. While confined, they undergo psychological evaluations and take English courses. Some are allowed tourist-type activities, such as going to the beach or museums, according to Mexican consular officials in Texas. At least one youth earned a high school general equivalency diploma.

“We haven’t heard of any mistreatment,” said Erasmo R. Martinez, Mexico’s consul in McAllen, Tex.

But the little-known program, called the Juvenile Referral Process, has worried human rights groups and some Mexican officials who fear that it puts the children at risk. They view it as a way for U.S. authorities to gather intelligence about cartels and think it endangers the children who could be targeted as informants when they return to Mexico. Some question the legality of the extended detentions.

“Our concern is that the program’s real intent is to interrogate the kids,” said Maureen Meyer, an expert on Mexico and migrants at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The kids are “often questioned about the criminal groups they are working for and then subsequently returned to Mexico with no apparent concern about the implications for them.”

While in custody last year, one Mexican boy who worked as a guide shared information with U.S. authorities about the location of stash houses used by migrants as they move through the United States, according to his lawyer’s written summary of his case. When he returned to Mexico, he learned that armed men had forced their way into his home and killed a relative’s son. The men told the family that there had been raids on cartel hideouts and arrests and that they believed the boy was responsible. His half-brother was later killed by the same group. The boy, his lawyer said, has since been in hiding.

Harris said the Border Patrol does not have a system to track what happens to the juveniles once they return to Mexico. The program does appear to be discouraging them from returning illegally to Texas, he said. The patrol calculates that just 7 percent of the children who have gone through the program have been picked up again crossing the border.

In the past, Mexican minors picked up by the Border Patrol normally would be deported by bus, sometimes on the same day they arrived. Some of these kids have been captured more than 60 times, and Harris’s officers have identified about 800 young smugglers operating in Texas. Human rights workers in Mexico and the United States say these kids are often forced to work for the cartels or risk retaliation against themselves or their families.

Drug cartels “exploit hundreds of juveniles, using them as smugglers, guides, and scouts; in turn these juveniles are responsible for smuggling thousands of illegal aliens and large amounts of narcotics,” the Border Patrol told WOLA in a statement about the program.

The program began in May in two Border Patrol sectors, Laredo and Del Rio, consisting of nearly 400 miles of the Texas border with Mexico.

“The moment it started, it took us all by surprise, because there wasn’t an announcement,” said Reyna Torres Mendívil, director general of the Mexican Foreign Ministry’s office for protection of Mexicans abroad. “Where were they taking these children?”

Border Patrol agents would refer them to the U.S. attorney’s office, but typically, unless there are aggravating circumstances, they won’t be prosecuted. So this period of detention is intended to be a punishment in lieu of a criminal charge. The shelters they are sent to also house juveniles from Central America, awaiting flights home; last year, the Mexican kids accounted for about 1 percent of all the detainees in these facilities.

In November, Oscar Jaime Rodriguez Mendoza, a 16-year-old from the border town of Reynosa, left for the United States and didn’t come home.

“We didn’t know what had happened to him,” said his mother, Leonor Mendoza, a 37-year-old clothing vendor.

She finally learned that he had been sent to a shelter in California. From there, he was allowed to talk to her by phone every night for 10 minutes. Oscar told his mother that the kids were grouped by risk or behavior — purple, yellow, green — and that some couldn’t leave the facility. Oscar was a purple, he told his mom, with the least restrictions. On one occasion, he got to go ice skating.

“It’s a type of punishment so they won’t cross as much,” his mother said. “For me, sincerely, it’s okay. It will discourage him from doing it again.”

Mexican authorities say they don’t want these minors to be stigmatized or criminalized by U.S. authorities. Mendívil, of the Foreign Ministry, said that not all repeat border-crossers are cartel-linked smugglers. She cited the case of one child who crossed repeatedly to buy used clothes for his mother to sell in Mexico.

“We’re in favor of what is in the best interest of the minor,” she said. “Many of these kids may have legitimate claim to perhaps be reunited with family in the U.S. We want them to have their day in court and be heard. If they are threatened, if they are victims of trafficking, if they have been in a family crisis situation, they deserve to be heard and protected from whatever is threatening them.”

At the local level, Mexican immigration officials along the border consider the program effective because they’ve found that it discourages children from working as guides.

“It’s excellent for us,” said Erasmo Rodriguez, an immigration official in the border town of Piedras Negras. “We’ve received many fewer minors.”

In the first two months of the year, just five repeat crossers from the area were deported to his office. Before the Border Patrol program, he said, dozens would be returned in a normal month.

The Executive Order Trump signed will not last… here are some examples of how and why it will fail. The first source is Leftist, FYI:

Trump can’t overrule the Flores settlement with the stroke of a pen…

[….]

The Flores settlement now at the center of the family separation crisis has a 30-year history. In the 1980s, several lawsuits were filed over the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the care of the US government. One was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled her home country to find an aunt who was living in the United States, but she was detained by federal authorities at the US border.

Flores and other minors in federal custody sometimes had to share sleeping quarters and bathrooms with unrelated adult men and women. Flores was strip-searched regularly, and she was told she could only be released to her parents, not her aunt. The ACLU asserted in its lawsuit that Flores and other unaccompanied children had a constitutional right to be released to “responsible” adults, as the Marquette Law Review documented in a review of the Flores settlement’s history.

The case went through several federal courts before reaching the Supreme Court in 1993, and the high court mostly sided with the government. But the real consequence was a consent decree agreed to by the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs in the litigation in 1997. The decree, known as the Flores settlement, set standards for unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities.

(VOX)

 

 

 

The Media Is Assisting Terror Groups In Attacking Israel

Another segment that is part of this example of the media’s view of Israel, which focuses more on the pastors who opened and closed the benediction of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem (posted at end of this post). I include in this audio video of a debate at Oxford Prager spoke of as well as an excerpt of the interview with Alan Dershowitz.

Keep in mind that senior Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar admits that this is not a peaceful protest. But the Western Media is saying that this is a peaceful protest…as if they are helping attack Israel in their own way ([see below] CONSERVATIVE REVIEW | TOWNHALL | FOX NEWS),as a united front of sorts working in unison with Hamas.

The following is with thanks to CONSERVATIVE REVIEW:

In a column for the Daily Wire, Shapiro shows how Hamas is inciting violence against Israeli security forces and hiding behind women and children as they march on the Israeli border. But in the mainstream media, these are some of the headlines you’ll read:

And don’t forget this horrible front page from the New York Daily News:

[MORE EXAMPLES]

Mainstream media is at it again, promulgating fake news. 

I woke up this morning to a slew of stories about “Palestinian Protestors Killed in Gaza Protests.” The imagery of a man holding up a cardboard sign while getting shot comes to mind, from such a headline, doesn’t it? I became concerned, read further. 

Turns out, it’s the same ‘ol anti-Israeli fake news. Mainstream media at it again. 

Headlines:

  • CNN: “37 Palestinians killed in Gaza protests ahead of US embassy opening”
  • ABC News: “Death toll in massive Palestinian protests climbs to at least 41, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war”
  • Washington Post: “Israelis kill dozens of Palestinians in Gaza protesting U.S. Embassy move to Jerusalem”
  • Los Angeles Times: “At least 37 Palestinians killed by Israeli army at Gaza border”

These articles carry inflammatory titles. But the story doesn’t match the headlines….

(TOWNHALL)

Dennis Prager is friends with Pastors Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, and throws some cold water on the Left’s faux flames. Prager wrote one of the leading books on Antisemitism, “Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism,” and knows “Jew hatred” when he see’s it. All he sees here is the Left’s hatred of anything pro-Israel.

Dennis Prager Highlights Two WaPo Stories Debunking Leftist Positions

Dennis Prager gives credit where credit is due. The Washington Post debunks two widely believed stats gobbled up by the Mainstream Media (MSM).

The first story by WAPO fact checks Rubio’s statement about proposed laws making no difference in the recent school shootings:

The other story looks into the widely repeated claims about 18-school shooting already in 2018

WaPo – Did Trump Spills the Beans to the Russians? No

Of course the talk this morning is about the Washington Post story, highlighted at HOTAIR, where Trump was suppose to have given classified information to the Russians during a meeting. A friend asked me about this and I responded in part:

Okay, my thoughts are the same as I relayed to a friend (before the above McMaster audio was watched): ” the bottom line is in a discussion between two powers fighting a common enemy, what the President decides to declassify is his prerogative, not WaPo’s. The main issue is when are these leakers going to be prosecuted?”

To which my compatriot wisely noted: “…agreed, how many secrets were shared between FDR and Stalin?”

General McMaster also said something similar later in the day:

As well as Trump laying down Presidential authority via Twitter (not so Presidential medium):

Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:

….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….

(Read It All)

Wonder What Fake News Is? Benjamin Netanyahu Tells Us (Updated)

(NEWSBUSTERS) Better not show the latest video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan. She has already revealed that she is triggered just by the term “fake news” and the video of Netanyahu accusing CNN and the New York Times of reporting fake news about Hamas would probably cause her to wilt from such a macroaggression. Netanyahu not only clearly explains why CNN and the Times were reporting fake news but provides a nice finishing touch by tossing the Hamas report into a trash bucket.

GATESTONE INSTITUTE has an excellent piece about the renewed vigor against Israel and America:

As U.S. President Donald Trump prepares to hold his second meeting with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem next week, two Palestinian terror groups have announced that the new U.S. administration is planning to “liquidate the Palestinian cause.” The warning by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is directed not only against Trump and his new administration, but also against Abbas and any Arab leader who dares to “collude” with the U.S.

The two Palestinian terror groups, which control the Gaza Strip and its two million residents, also renewed their pledge to pursue the armed fight against Israel; they said they would not give up one inch of Palestine, from the (Mediterranean) sea to the (Jordan) river.

Trump and his administration would do well to heed the warning issued by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, especially in the wake of Abbas’s recent statements concerning a two-state solution and peace with Israel. Abbas controls only parts of the West Bank, and how he intends to establish a Palestinian state when he cannot even set foot in the Gaza Strip is anyone’s guess. Recently, Hamas announced that if and when the 82-year-old Abbas shows up in the Gaza Strip, he will be hanged in a public square on charges of “high treason.”

The warning by the Palestinian terror groups was made during a joint rally in the Gaza Strip on May 14. Leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad vowed to “preserve the Palestinian rifle and Palestinian rights in the face of any schemes and attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar stated that Palestinian “principles are part of our [Islamic] religion, and we cannot make any concessions on them. We will not give up one inch of our land and holy sites. We will continue to work until the liberation of each inch of Palestine.”

Zahar also warned Abbas against signing any agreement with Israel that includes relinquishing Palestinian rights. “Anyone who gives up our rights and holy sites will betray Allah and his Prophet Mohammed,” Zahar cautioned.

Notably, Zahar’s statement to “liberate every inch of Palestine” comes amid false claims in the Western media to the effect that Hamas has abandoned its dream of eliminating Israel.

The claims are based on a new policy document recently published by Hamas; it says that the Islamic terror movement accepts a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, but without recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Translation: Hamas seeks a Palestinian state that would be used as a launching pad to destroy Israel.

Zahar and other Hamas leaders have taken advantage of every available platform to clarify that their acceptance of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines does not mean abandoning their plan to eliminate Israel.

They have also explained, at length, that the new policy document does not replace Hamas’s original charter, which explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel.

Hamas’s honesty with respect to its true intentions stands in utter contrast to the deceit with which the policy document is being treated by others.

For instance, some Western media outlets and Palestinian affairs “experts” and “analysts” deceptively describe the document as a sign of moderation and pragmatism on the part of Hamas.

While Hamas leaders proudly proclaim that there is no real change in their ideology and charter, some Westerners seem to have a sort of hearing disability when it comes to the truth of the terror movement.

Another Hamas leader, Ahmed Bahr, said at the rally that his movement remains strongly opposed to security coordination between Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and Israel in the West Bank.

Bahr described the security coordination and the crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank as a new Palestinian “Nakba” (Catastrophe) — the term used by Palestinians and Arabs to describe the establishment of Israel in 1948…..

(Read It All)

Obama Spent BILLIONS On Failing Schools – No Change

Here is a portion of the WASHINGTON POST that Prager was reading:

One of the Obama administration’s signature efforts in education, which pumped billions of federal dollars into overhauling the nation’s worst schools, failed to produce meaningful results, according to a federal analysis.

Test scores, graduation rates and college enrollment were no different in schools that received money through the School Improvement Grants program — the largest federal investment ever targeted to failing schools — than in schools that did not.

The Education Department published the findings on the website of its research division on Wednesday, hours before President Obama’s political appointees walked out the door.

“We’re talking about millions of kids who are assigned to these failing schools, and we just spent several billion dollars promising them things were going to get better,” said Andy Smarick, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has long been skeptical that the Obama administration’s strategy would work. “Think of what all that money could have been spent on instead.”…

Larry Elder Slays Fools About Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe Speech

I previously uploaded some segments of Dennis Prager dealing with the issue as well (https://youtu.be/Hmr3cinSuSI). Since then more videos of Trump’s mannerisms have come out. In this show by Larry Elder, he takes calls from people who believe Trump really did mock a reporter’s disability. In fact, these mannerisms pre-and-post date the event Meryl Streep comments on showing her #Fakenews bully pulpit to spread miss-truths. Even Randy Quaid was moved to pen a forceful open letter to Meryl Streep.

Here is part of the article in the DAILY MAIL by Piers Morgan:

…Last night, Streep received a Lifetime Achievement award at the Golden Globes, and chose the moment to launch a very personal attack on Donald Trump.

She began by saying that Hollywood, foreigners and the press are ‘the most vilified segments of American society right now’.

At which point the cameras panned out to hundreds of the richest, most privileged people in American society sitting in the audience in their $10,000 tuxedos and $20,000 dresses, loudly cheering this acknowledgement of their dreadful victimhood.

She then said that if all the ‘outsiders and foreigners’ were kicked out of Hollywood, ‘you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.’

Wow.

I haven’t heard such elitist snobbery since Hillary Clinton branded Trump supporters ‘a basket of deplorables’. 

For your information, Ms Streep, tens of millions of ordinary Americans love football and the MMA and would be quite happy watching their favourite sports at the expense of the next Woody Allen film.

Her real target, though, was Trump. She’d come to take him down, and that is exactly what she proceeded to do.

‘There were many powerful performances this year that did breathtaking, compassionate work,’ she said. ‘But there was one performance that stunned me. It sank it hooks in my heart, not because it was good – there’s nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter. Someone he outranked in privilege and power and the capacity to fight back.’

Meryl’s bottom lip began to tremble.

‘It kind of broke my heart when I saw it,’ she cried, ‘and I still can’t get it out of my head. This instinct to humiliate when it’s modelled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, filters down into everybody’s life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing.’

Hmmm.

Really, Meryl?

For starters, the incident to which she referred didn’t happen last year, it happened in 2015. There’s even been another Golden Globes in between then and now, at which it was never mentioned.

Second, Trump has always furiously denied – and has again today on Twitter – he was mocking the reporter’s disability and a Conservative website produced video evidence of numerous other instances where he made the exact same gesture to fully able-bodied people when attacking them. (See here and decide for yourself)….

Ouch!!

Mark Levin Discusses the Electoral College (Plus: WaPo)

Here is a portion of the article by ALLEN GUELZO and JAMES HULME Mark Levin was reading from:

…After last week’s results, we’re hearing a litany of complaints: the electoral college is undemocratic, the electoral college is unnecessary, the electoral college was invented to protect slavery — and the demand to push it down the memory hole.

All of which is strange because the electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism. The Founders who sat in the 1787 Constitutional Convention lavished an extraordinary amount of argument on the electoral college, and it was by no means one-sided. The great Pennsylvania jurist James Wilson believed that “if we are to establish a national Government,” the president should be chosen by a direct, national vote of the people. But wise old Roger Sherman of Connecticut replied that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy. “An independence of the Executive [from] the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing.” Sherman was not trying to undermine the popular will, but to keep it from being distorted by a president who mistook popular election as a mandate for dictatorship.

Quarrels like this flared all through the convention, until, at almost the last minute, James Madison “took out a Pen and Paper, and sketched out a mode of Electing the President” by a “college” of “Electors … chosen by those of the people in each State, who shall have the Qualifications requisite.”

The Founders also designed the operation of the electoral college with unusual care. The portion of Article 2, Section 1, describing the electoral college is longer and descends to more detail than any other single issue the Constitution addresses. More than the federal judiciary — more than the war powers — more than taxation and representation. It prescribes in precise detail how “Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”; how these electors “shall vote by Ballot” for a president and vice president; how they “shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate” the results of their balloting; how a tie vote must be resolved; what schedule the balloting should follow; and on and on.

Above all, the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Some historians have branded the electoral college this way because each state’s electoral votes are based on that “whole Number of Senators and Representatives” from each State, and in 1787 the number of those representatives was calculated on the basis of the infamous 3/5ths clause. But the electoral college merely reflected the numbers, not any bias about slavery (and in any case, the 3/5ths clause was not quite as proslavery a compromise as it seems, since Southern slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 5/5ths for determining representation in Congress, and had to settle for a whittled-down fraction). As much as the abolitionists before the Civil War liked to talk about the “proslavery Constitution,” this was more of a rhetorical posture than a serious historical argument. And the simple fact remains, from the record of the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings (James Madison’s famous Notes), that the discussions of the electoral college and the method of electing a president never occur in the context of any of the convention’s two climactic debates over slavery.

If anything, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. This, in large measure, was why Southern slaveholders stampeded to secession in 1860-61. They could do the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the electoral college would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.

[….]

Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.

The electoral college has been a major, even if poorly comprehended, mechanism for stability in a democracy, something which democracies are sometimes too flighty to appreciate. It may appear inefficient. But the Founders were not interested in efficiency; they were interested in securing “the blessings of liberty.” The electoral college is, in the end, not a bad device for securing that.

Did Trump Go Full Retard On That Reporter, Serge Kovaleski?

Let me further note on this rebuttal that at worst… Trump’s way of communicating is what is “full retard,” and not Presidential. Could you picture the Gipper doing this? Or Carly Fiorina, or Ted Cruz, or Bobby Jindal? Nope… that is because they respect the office. But this is what people wanted.

Dennis Prager takes calls on Trump mocking the disabled Washington Post (WaPo) reporter, Serge Kovaleski. The best rebuttal of the media’s narrative on this can be found at CATHOLICS 4 TRUMP.

I adapted [added to] some video from ANGIE GROVER, using it to bolster the point with the caller who has adopted the media narrative in full. Take note she does change her previous position.

And yes, Serge DID write about celebrations. Again, this is all well documented at Catholics 4 Trump.