10 thoughts on “News/Politics 12-6-18

  1. Anti-Semitism is alive and well on college campuses.


    “In December 2013, the American Studies Associations passed an academic boycott of Israel, part of the international Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

    The ASA boycott, which is the subject of ongoing litigation, was undertaking by anti-Israel faculty who methodically took over key ASA committees and National Council. Though only about 20% of the ASA membership voted for the boycott, that was enough given low participation rates in the voting.

    Systematic academic boycotts are considered contrary to academic freedom according to the American Association of University Professors.

    Immediately after the ASA December 2013 vote, Legal Insurrection organized a crowdsourcing effort to call upon university and colleges to condemn the ASA action, Reader crowdsourcing project to fight American Studies Assoc anti-Israel boycott.

    The effort proved successful beyond our expectations.

    Within a short period of time the effort gained such momentum that I was receiving unsolicited communications from university and college administrators asking to be added to the list. In all, over 250 university and college presidents, plus numerous university associations, condemned the ASA action. Our List of Universities rejecting academic boycott of Israel (Update – 250!) became the most widely cited compilation of such condemnations.

    This outpouring of condemnation resulted in even the NY Times describing ASA as a “pariah”:

    With its recent vote to boycott Israel’s higher-education institutions to protest the country’s treatment of Palestinians, the American Studies Association has itself become the target of widespread criticism and ostracism. It has gone from relative obscurity to prominence as a pariah of the United States higher-education establishment, its experience serving as a cautionary tale for other scholarly groups that might consider taking a similar stand on the Middle East.

    Since then there have been repeated efforts to move the academic boycott to larger academic organizations, without success. But the anti-Israel activist professors keep trying.

    In the past year there have been new tactics employed by anti-Israel faculty. Since collective action at the university organizational level have mostly failed, faculty are going rogue. We covered the example of two U. Michigan professors who refuse to write recommendations for students seeking to attend Israeli universities under U. Michigan approved programs. The faculty at Pitzer College in California recently voted to terminate study abroad programs in Israel.

    These anti-Israel faculty are engaging in unethical behavior that damages students. The faculty are free to believe what they wish, and to boycott Israel themselves, but when they use the power they have over students by depriving students of educational opportunities based on faculty political views, they breach their positions of trust.

    The AMCHA Initiative has organized a campaign calling on the 250 universities and colleges who condemned the ASA boycott to condemn the academic boycott of Israel and to take a pledge to uphold academic freedom for students. “


  2. The creepy line.


    “This morning Google told me that it would not allow my YouTube video “Socialism Leads to Violence” to be viewed by young people. It violates “community guidelines,” said the company in a computer-generated email.

    Anti-capitalist bias? Or just an algorithm shielding children from disturbing violence in Venezuela? I don’t know.

    But a new documentary, “The Creepy Line,” argues that companies like Google and Facebook lean left and have power they shouldn’t have.

    The title “Creepy Line” refers to a comment by former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who said when it comes to issues like privacy, Google policy “is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it.”

    But the documentary argues that Google crosses that creepy line every day.

    Google’s power comes from its dominant search engine. We assume that whatever appears at the top of our searches is the “best” or most popular result.

    But is it?

    “It is a company that has an agenda,” the writer of “The Creepy Line,” Peter Schweizer, says in my latest video.”


  3. Like I’ve been saying…..

    He’s a traitor. His efforts are meaningless and only delay the inevitable for a month or so. It’s not principle, it’s political grandstanding by a soon to be unemployed fraud. (Don’t worry, I’m sure CNN or MSNBC has a spot waiting for him)



  4. And speaking of soon to be out of work frauds……

    Reap it Kristol. You and your politics ruined a once great publication. Nobody wants to buy what you’re selling.

    Own it.


    “Apparently, no new owner willing to sustain losses in order to keep an anti-Trump conservative voice alive could be found.

    The current owner of the Weekly Standard is MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media. MediaDC also owns the Examiner. Does anyone believe that this is a coincidence?

    Clarity Media, announced that a sister publication, The Washington Examiner, would be expanding its footprint with a blown-out weekly conservative magazine with national distribution. That appeared to overlap with the Weekly Standard’s model, leaving staffers and supporters of the magazine to wonder what its fate would be.

    Let me translate: the Weekly Standard has killed its brand by remaining anti-Trump while the conservative movement has lined up behind President Trump. Out with the Weekly Standard, in with the Weekly Examiner. The key question is how many – if any – of the anti-Trump staff from TWS will have jobs at the new weekly.

    CNN sees the connection:

    One of the people familiar with the matter told CNN that the Washington Examiner is expanding at the expense of The Weekly Standard.

    Make no mistake: The Weekly Standard was the institutional legacy of Bill Kristol and Steve Hayes. By persisting in, even escalating in Kristol’s case, their hatred of Trump, they have sacrificed that legacy, if this plays out.

    Yes, it is absolutely true that publishing online and in print has become difficult for everyone, as online advertising dollars have been hoovered up by Google and Facebook, leaving precious little for the rest of us. American Thinker faces those same challenges. But our readership has never been larger, while, according to Politico:

    As recently as five years ago, it [TWS] boasted a print circulation of about 100,000, but by last year, that number had fallen to 72,000, according to the auditing group BPA Worldwide. Between 2016 and 2017, the year Trump took office, paid circulation for the magazine dropped by about 7,000, or roughly 10 percent, according to the auditing group.

    Part of me mourns the impending loss of a political journal employing a lot of smart people. This is a tragedy in the original Greek sense of the term – a nasty fate that is the product of a fatal flaw: hubris.”


  5. Continuing on the fraud theme…..


    “Former FBI director James Comey will be deposed Friday in a closed-door session by the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees as part of their joint investigation into decisions the Department of Justice made in 2016. Comey had filed suit to quash the congressional subpoena, but following an ominous hearing before a federal judge last week, Comey agreed to appear Friday morning. The House in turn assured Comey that he could discuss the hearing upon its conclusion and that a transcript would be issued within 24 hours.

    Hopefully the lack of a live audience will allow the congressmen to focus on fact-finding and not grandstanding. And there are many facts still to be revealed — and of which Comey holds the answers — concerning both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a homebrew server and the investigation into the Trump campaign.

    The latter, though, demands the committees’ most ardent focus because, if left unexposed and uncorrected, the weaponizing of the DOJ and FBI for political purposes, and the abuse of the intelligence community and FISA court system, threaten the very integrity of our justice system and our democracy. While the public to some extent, and the House and Senate committees to a greater extent, now know some of the unsavory details surrounding what, for simplicity’s sake, the moniker Spygate best encapsulates, many more questions demand answers.

    Here’s a catalogue of inquiries for the committees to pursue.

    Who knew what, and when?
    Before quizzing Comey on the nitty-gritty details, the committees need to first find out the players involved, both inside and outside our government. Some of the players are familiar — Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Andrew McCabe. But who else was involved in the run-up to the official launch of Crossfire Hurricane, the decision to initiate that probe into the Trump campaign, and the actual investigation?

    The committees should start broadly and ask Comey to identify “the who” involved in the investigation into Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. They should tell the former FBI director that Congress needs his help:

    Identifying any departments, agencies, or individuals within the executive branch who provided information or received information, concerning Donald Trump and/or his campaign or supporters and their supposed connections to Russia.

    Identifying any congressional members, offices, or staffers, or agencies or offices within the legislative branch who provided information or received information, concerning Donald Trump and/or his campaign or supporters and their supposed connections to Russia.

    Identifying any foreign governments or individuals connected to foreign governments who provided information or received information, concerning Donald Trump and/or his campaign or supporters and their supposed connection to Russia.

    Identifying any private organizations or private citizens or who provided information or received information, concerning Donald Trump and/or his campaign or supporters and their supposed connection to Russia.”


  6. It’s way past time to fire this guy. He should never have been hired to begin with.


    “But I’m happy to report that some conservatives are advocating Acosta’s departure. Concerned Women for America is a stalwart conservatives organization. It describes itself, accurately, as “focus[ed] on seven core issues: the family, the sanctity of human life, religious liberty, education, sexual exploitation, national sovereignty, and support for Israel.” (Emphasis added)

    Its leader, Penny Nance, has called for Acosta’s recommendation. Noting that labor trafficking, which the Labor Department combats, is often conjoined with sex trafficking, Nance says that President Trump would not have nominated Acosta if reports fully describing Acosta’s conduct in the Epstein case had emerged earlier.

    Sen. Ben Sasse has also weighed in. He sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it to investigate its treatment of Epstein, including the fact that the plea deal ensured that victims of the pervert would be denied the ability to comment on or object to the leniency of his sentence. Sasse is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts.

    Sen. Marco Rubio, a longtime supporter of Acosta, says it would be “very troubling” if political influence led to a light sentence for Epstein. In Rubio’s view, and that of every rational person, Epstein “should have been in jail for a long time.” Rubio added, however, that he will reserve judgment until he hears Acosta’s side.

    That’s fair. But so far, Acosta has provided no real defense for letting Epstein off so lightly. In public, at least, he is standing by his argument that the deal was a reasonable one and that this is old news.

    Previously, Acosta had a different defense. He cited “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by “an army of legal superstars” who represented Epstein. This allegedly included “defense counsel investigat[ing] individual prosecutors and their families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis for disqualification.” In this account, the deal was made to relieve the pressure, while still getting a conviction.

    Acosta could hardly assert this explanation — i.e., that he wimped out — while seeking a cabinet position with the expectation of being appointed to more exalted jobs in the future. Nor is the explanation particularly plausible. Acosta isn’t the first prosecutor to face a scorched earth defense. Ask Ken Starr about this.

    I don’t doubt that Acosta regarded escaping the wrath of the defense team as a benefit of reaching the plea deal. But I don’t believe this was incentive enough to cause him, in effect, to throw the case.

    What was the true incentive? As I wrote when this story broke, I think it was the same incentive that explains much of his conduct in public life — Acosta’s desire to accommodate people he thinks can help him down the road.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Epstein has been linked to every politician of note…..even Trump. Its a favorite game of conspiracy theorist…seven degrees of epstein


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.