Posted tagged ‘Facts Don’t Matter’

What Trump koi fish controversy? Watch what really happened

November 7, 2017

What Trump koi fish controversy? Watch what really happened, Fox News via YouTube, November 6, 2017

(“Journalists” will be “journalists.” — DM)

US Diplomacy: When failure became an accepted option

August 15, 2017

US Diplomacy: When failure became an accepted option, Israel National News, Meir Jolovitz, August 15, 2017

(Please see also, President [Rouhani of Iran]: Iran Could Swiftly Return to Pre-JCPOA Conditions. — DM)

For what it’s worth, future historians will judge the North Korean crisis as the less significant one of our generation – simply because China is able to control it. The more formidable and dangerous threat is the nuclearization of Iran. The occasional terror attacks in Europe, murderous as they are, pale in comparison.

In kind, the geopolitical threat that has already been unleashed – remarkably with more support than opposition by the West – is the facilitation of an Iranian nuclear capability. With the overt and covert support of the Obama Administration – despite its denials – the Iranians were fast changing the rules of the game. Unless stopped forcibly in the next year or two, Iran will be in possession of the bomb. Correction: bombs.


It’s been said by many, in various forms, that “hindsight is everyone’s favorite perspective.”  The problem is, few grasp when “it” is happening until “it” has happened.

Political analysts and pundits are seemingly in concert: the most disquieting crisis that confronts our world today is the realization that North Korea presents a horrifying threat that remains unchecked. It didn’t have to be.

When Susan Rice, President Obama’s National Security Advisor from 2013 to 2017, admitted this past week that the two-decade-old US strategy on preventing North Korea from obtaining a nuclear capability was a “failure,” our hindsight was offered some unclouded perspective.

And yet, it was her other comments that made us understand that the lessons of history remain unlearned. Rice, with a criticism directed at President Donald Trump, opined that pragmatism dictates that we should simply accept, and tolerate, a nuclear North Korea.  Worse was the quiet acquiescence:  “The fact of the matter is, that despite all of these efforts, the North Korean regime has been able to succeed in progressing with its program, both nuclear and missile. That’s a very unfortunate outcome; but we are where we are.” Rice added: “It will require being pragmatic.

Pause to laugh, and cry.

Trump, luckily, did not hire Rice as an adviser, and did what he thought was right.

In 1967, a couple of years before he achieved notoriety as the controversial founder and voice of the Jewish Defense League, Rabbi Meir Kahane coauthored a book – The Jewish Stake in Vietnam –  whose implications were largely ignored. One might still find it on the shelves of some antiquarian book store, but the book is largely lost. Its relevance, decades lately, offers food for serious thought.

While the book’s theoretical message was clear, the practical implications remain undeniable.

The radical rabbi argued that the anti-Vietnam war sentiment that had targeted the hearts and minds of a confused American population that was increasingly drawn to slogans of “peace,” “liberation,” and “democratic freedom” – would pressure its government to abandon an ally, South Vietnam. The implication, seemingly unthinkable even to Jewish liberals in the aftermath of Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, was that if the United States could not stand firm in its commitment to support an ally in Southeast Asia, it would one day be willing to abandon its commitment to its only ally in the Middle East as well. Ergo, the Jewish state.

Times have changed, and with it, America’s foreign policy. Israel is no longer considered America’s only ally in a still-troubled Middle East. In fact, the United States counts many, mostly as a result of a misbegotten reinterpretation of what allies are, thanks in great measure to the US State Department’s purposeful redefinition of American interests in the region.

One recalls the comment most often attributed to Charles de Gaulle: “Nations don’t have friends, only interests.”

Despite the very strong relationship that ostensibly exists between President Trump and Israel – at great contrast with that of his predecessor – his State Department and the National Security Council are still adherents of ‘interests before friends’. And, they mistakenly and quite foolishly attribute American interests to the wrong side. Governed by the belief that the “occupied” territories and the settlements are the reason of the impasse to the conflict between Muslims and Jews, Trump is ready to dispatch his son-in-law to once again bridge the unbridgeable gap.

In an oil-thirsty world, the Muslim states (we include here of course, the Islamic Republic of Iran) seemed to have gained a leverage that was simply unthinkable in 1967. The Europeans seemed the first to turn the other cheek when Arab terror spread, still in its nascent stages – mostly one would think, because it was not their cheeks that were being most often slapped.

Over the years, the terror in Europe proliferated. And correlatively, so did the finger of blame that was directed at Israel. As long as the Muslim antipathy was directed at the Jewish State – and more telling, Jews everywhere – the Europeans would assuage the perpetrators. It was Israel that was called to make compromises, territorial and (axiomatically) ideological. The more threatening and damaging the terror, the more shrill the calls for Israeli capitulation.

Undeniably, the greatest threat to the ever-elusive peace in the Middle East, and the invariable spill-over of violence into a Europe that is fast becoming a battlefield, is the terror that so many of its nations have voluntarily imported with the jihadis who carry the torch of Islam.

For what it’s worth, future historians will judge the North Korean crisis as the less significant one of our generation – simply because China is able to control it. The more formidable and dangerous threat is the nuclearization of Iran. The occasional terror attacks in Europe, murderous as they are, pale in comparison.

In kind, the geopolitical threat that has already been unleashed – remarkably with more support than opposition by the West – is the facilitation of an Iranian nuclear capability. With the overt and covert support of the Obama Administration – despite its denials – the Iranians were fast changing the rules of the game. Unless stopped forcibly in the next year or two, Iran will be in possession of the bomb. Correction: bombs.

Meanwhile, the new Trump foreign policy team, despite its frequent criticism of the Obama-Iran nuke deal, has yet to do anything significant. Worse, it has twice certified that Iran remains compliant. Of a deal that Trump called “the worst in diplomatic history.”

Yes, allies are often sacrificed on the mantle of political expedience. The US national security apparatus prefers to call it pragmatism.

And count on it. Susan Rice will one day again be interviewed by the New York Times and CNN, in a joint appearance with President Trump’s National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, admitting another failure. This will be the statement that they will issue: “The fact of the matter is, that despite all of these efforts, the Iranian regime been able to succeed in progressing with its program, both nuclear and missile. That’s a very unfortunate outcome; but we are where we are.” McMaster, resplendent in his uniform and its military regalia, will add: “It will require being pragmatic.”

After all, we are where we are!

Today, despite the unmistakable danger that Iran poses to Israel directly, it is more than simply a Jewish stake. This is an American interest. The message is quite clear. The practical implications are quite ominous. Let us hope Trump deals with Iran as he is dealing with North Korea.

Pause to cry.

Meir Jolovitz is a past national executive director of the Zionist Organization of America, and formerly associated with the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Devin Nunes Has Absolutely No Reason To Recuse Himself

March 28, 2017

Devin Nunes Has Absolutely No Reason To Recuse Himself, The Federalist, March 28, 2017

The day after Republican House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes held a press conference saying he’d seen reports that show the government may have collected information on Donald Trump’s transition team or family and then inappropriately shared it, journalists jumped into action. Not to dig into the accusation of NSA unmasking or a failure to minimize incidentally collected information — as they most surely would have had any Democrat been president — but to figure out where the congressman had been the past few days.

Most of the subsequent stories skipped over (or brushed past) the issue of abuse altogether to focus on the “incidental” nature of the accusation, which sounds innocent enough and is completely legal and not the issue. As Andrew McCarthy, certainly no squish when it comes to FISA, explains at the NRO:

Of course, any legitimate government power can be abused. If the government’s real objective was to intercept the communications not of the foreigners but of the Trump associates, such that the agencies’ “targeting” of the foreigners was merely a pretext (i.e., they were monitored only because they were in contact with Trump associates, who were the real targets), it could hardly be said that the associates’ communications were intercepted “incidentally.”

This seemed to escape the attention of erstwhile civil libertarians who once breathlessly warned us about the potential abuses of intelligence services, and specifically about the dangers of politicians getting entangled in the exploitation of sensitive information. They wanted to know what Nunes had for dinner last Tuesday night.

Certainly, as part of the larger story, it’s legitimate and useful to cover Nunes’ actions. When it turned out that he had been on White House grounds  — probably to use a sensitive compartmented information facility — it gave Democrats the space they needed to start demanding recusal.

“Calls Grow for Nunes to Step Aside in Inquiry on Surveillance,” says The New York Times. “The remarkable calls,” it goes on to say, “by Representatives Adam B. Schiff of California, the committee’s top Democrat,” came after revelations that Nunes had met a source at the White House. Democrats claimed that a “bipartisan investigation” could no longer be achieved.

For starters, the idea that Schiff isn’t a full-blown partisan is preposterous. He’s already made a number of wild and irresponsible claims about Russia “hacking our election.” (The California representative contends to have conclusive evidence of collusion, though he’s yet to share the specifics with the group.) There is no reason to treat him like the guardian of a chaste investigation. Others who went on the record to demand recusal were nonpartisan public servants like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

The Times’ headline, by the way, could just as easily have read “Calls Grow for Nunes to Stay on in Inquiry on Surveillance.” Last night, Rep. Trey Gowdy said that “Jesus would not be a satisfactory chairperson to some of my Democratic colleagues.” Rep. Peter King, just as much (or little) a partisan as Pelosi, came out in defense of Nunes. As did others. These “calls” are just as real. (It’s also important to remember that GOP hawks who have been critical of Nunes — although none have asked for recusal — are also defenders of the NSA’s wide authority under Section 702.)

Ostensibly, demanding recusal is framed as an effort to save the impartiality and integrity of the committee. In reality, it’s meant to create the impression that Nunes has done something unethical or illegal to defend Trump. It meant to proactively poison any investigation. Schiff offers two reasons for his position: 1 – Nunes shared information with the White House. 2 – Nunes got his information from someone in the White House.

Nunes has said this isn’t an inquiry into charges of Russian collusion, so why is it inappropriate for the House Intelligence Committee Chair to share intelligence about the president with the president — and then let the world know he’s done so? Furthermore, why is it wrong for the House Intelligence Committee Chair to see classified information from a source at the White House? “If that’s where the information is, and the information is relevant, and it’s authentic, and it’s reliable, wouldn’t you go where the information was?” Gowdy asked The Weekly Standard.

Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that Nunes had been ethically compromised, does the information attained in the effort become less valid? Were the leaks that cost Mike Flynn his job any less persuasive because they were illegally obtained? Haven’t many Democrats been defending the need for whistleblowers to speak up in the name of democracy?

Schiff has no reason to give up the name of his source. If the NSA abused its power, and the evidence is legitimate, we should welcome the information. If not, Nunes’ credibility will be blown forever. Considering Nunes’ history, the media had no reason to assume the latter, which mirrors the concerns and goals of Democrats.

Of course, Nunes might have nothing. If that’s the case, he’ll no doubt pay a steep political price. We’ll know soon enough.

Crying and Lying: Hysteria and repeated false claims showered upon us by the Left

November 21, 2016

Crying and Lying: Hysteria and repeated false claims showered upon us by the Left, American ThinkerJames Longstreet, November 21, 2016

(Please see also, The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t. — DM)

Greg Gutfeld brutally calls out the Left and the fake cable news shows that push out the false narratives and refuse to investigate the veracity of the claims that pass over their air waves.

Remarkable is the stream of claims that America is now tainted by the Trump supporters and their hateful antics. Case after case is blurted across the left leaning cable shows.  But is seems there is never a corroboration or proof of the incidents so claimed.

“It doesn’t matter if it is false because it is bound to be true somewhere.”

“Do the fakers go to jail for wasting our time?”

Is this not akin to pulling the fire alarm switch in the high school hallway?

In this video, Greg gives a monologue that calls out these fabricators and their enablers.

The real punishment must come to the cable shows that push out these falsehoods.  Turn them off.  Hit them on the bottom line, and tell them why.

When they have to make it up, it must be near the end.  When they must castigate the Vice President elect when he has a night out with the family, it must be near the end.



Black Lives Matter: A Movement Built on Lies

July 12, 2016

Black Lives Matter: A Movement Built on Lies, Front Page MagazineJohn Perazzo, July 12, 2016


The clown show known as Black Lives Matter is akin to a paranoid maniac who: (a) dreams that his spouse is having a torrid, illicit affair; (b) then berates and beats his spouse upon waking up; and (c) finally, when reminded that it was all just a dream, becomes even more enraged at the betrayal he supposedly suffered while he slept. There’s really no point to continuing the charade of calling Black Lives Matter by the phony name it has exploited since its inception. If black lives truly mattered to the know-nothings who comprise this movement, they would have something—anything—to say about the fact that approximately 5,500 of the 6,095 black victims of homicide in 2014 were killed not by white devils, not by satanic ghouls in blue uniforms, but by other blacks. Instead, all they give us is a silent, collective yawn punctuated with a raised middle finger. So from this point forward, Black Lives Matter will be called by its correct name, “Facts Don’t Matter.”

The mouthpieces of Facts Don’t Matter say their mission is to demand “an immediate end” to “the murder of Black people” by the hordes of racists who purportedly comprise our nation’s police forces. They tell us that African Americans are a hunted and endangered species, mowed down by blue-uniformed white sadists who are animated by bloodlust, bigotry, and dreams of genocide. But wait. It turns out that of all the people who have been killed by police in the United States in recent years, about 42% were white, 20% were Hispanic, and 32% were black—even as blacks committed nearly 39% of the types of serious crimes most likely to result in a violent confrontation with police. Last year was typical: 494 whites and 258 blacks were killed by police. And what do the race-obsessed demagogues at Facts Don’t Matter have to say about this? Nothing. Facts Don’t Matter.

Facts Don’t Matter tells us that police are particularly inclined to gun down, in cold blood, African Americans who are unarmed and pose no threat to anyone. Of course, “unarmed” victims are sometimes shot while they’re physically assaulting an officer or trying to take away his gun. But still, let’s play along and look at—if you’ll excuse the expression—the facts. In 2015, there were 38 unarmed blacks and 32 unarmed whites who were shot and killed by police. These figures are roughly proportional to the respective numbers of violent crimes committed by blacks and whites nationwide. So why the outrage? Because Facts Don’t Matter. Remember?

And does it matter that statistically, the likelihood of a police officer being killed by a black male is 18.5 times greater than the likelihood of an unarmed black male being killed by a cop? Nope. Facts Don’t … well, you know how it goes.

The plain truth is that if you search for evidence of systemic racism in police shootings, you won’t find it anywhere outside the imaginations of the Facts Don’t Matter racists and the imbeciles who support them. The premise underlying Facts Don’t Matter’s mission is a lie, founded on a fantasy, stapled to a hallucination, wrapped inside a fairy tale, strapped to the wing of a unicorn.

But naturally, none of this prevented Barack Obama—in the aftermath of the recent police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana—from doing what he does best: lament America’s intransigent white racism, and foment black hatred and mistrust of police officers. This is where the President always shines, and dutifully he trotted out several old favorites from his well-worn collection of hackneyed platitudes:

  • “[T]here’s a big chunk of our citizenry that feels as if, because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same.”
  • “[T]he data shows that black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. There is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens.”
  • “[T]hese fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.

A few hours later, a dozen officers were gunned down at a Facts Don’t Matter rally in Dallas, and five of them lay lifeless in pools of their own blood.

This atrocity was just a natural extension of the toxic and deadly anti-police climate that Obama had previously helped cultivate with many similar statements over the years. And not surprisingly, law-enforcement officers throughout urban America have responded to this troubling climate by becoming less proactive in apprehending criminal suspects, particularly for low-level offenses. This, in turn, has led to a dramatic rise in crime rates in a number of U.S. cities. For 2015 as a whole, America’s 56 largest cities experienced a 17% rise in homicides; in 10 heavily black cities, murders increased by more than 60%. During the first quarter of this year, homicides in the nation’s 63 largest cities increased by another 9%, while non-fatal shootings were up 21%. In other words, immense harm has been done to the very same “black lives” on whose behalf Facts Don’t Matter claims to work.

If Barack Obama were something other than a racist Marxist revolutionary, he would state clearly and unequivocally that the Facts Don’t Matter movement is nothing more than a horde of know-nothing degenerates who should be ostracized as the moral equivalents of cross-burning Klansmen. But that’s a bit much to expect from a man who has made yet another prominent racist, Al Sharpton, his leading adviser on matters of race. So instead, Obama doffs his hat to the Facts Don’t Matter clowns, and treats them like dignitaries. Leaders of Facts Don’t Matter have visited the Obama White House many times since 2013, meeting with not only the President, but also with the First Lady and a number of high-level administration officials.

In September 2015, for instance, Facts Don’t Matter leader Brittany Packnett—fresh off her seventh visit to the Obama White House—told reporters that the President had “offered us a lot of encouragement” while urging the activists to “‘keep speaking truth to power.’” The following month, Obama lauded Facts Don’t Matter for addressing “a specific problem that’s happening in the African-American community that’s not happening in other communities.” Two months after that, he described Facts Don’t Matter as a positive force that was shining “sunlight” on the fact that “there’s no black family that hasn’t had a conversation around the kitchen table about driving while black and being profiled or being stopped” by police. And at a Black History Month event at the White House this past February, Obama welcomed Facts Don’t Matter representatives and extolled their “outstanding work.”

This is the pathetic condition to which our nation has sunk under Barack Obama: The President of the United States openly and unequivocally supports a racist terror group that is committed to the slaughter of police officers and the breakdown of law-and-order—and, by logical extension, to a steep and swift rise in death-by-homicide rates among civilians in dozens of cities across the country. And he’s done it all in the name of “racial justice.” People don’t get any uglier—or dumber—than this.