| by Niall Ferguson via Newsweek Is the worm at long last turning? For years we have marveled at the willingness of trustees, donors, and alumni to tolerate the politicization of American universities by an illiberal coalition of "woke" progressives, adherents of "critical race theory," and apologists for Islamist extremism. ++++ Biden tried weakness and what did he get? Genocide Joe. He sought to resolve a moral issue and he has lost votes from those Islamists who Obama brought over to transform America. Biden sided with rabid haters and brainless youth who support in humane terrorists and they spit on him. Feckless and corrupt Uncle Joe is getting what he "richly" deserves. ++++++++++++++++++++++ Why Stanford’s Leaders Tolerate Anti-Semitism Recall how Marc Tessier-Lavigne was ousted as president after bucking leftist orthodoxies. By Allysia Finley
After Hamas massacred some 1,400 Israelis on Oct. 7, many Stanford students marched in support of the terrorist group, chanting “2, 4, 6, 8, smash the Zionist settler state.” University leaders responded with a statement supporting “academic freedom,” including the “expression of controversial and even offensive views.” This is the same university where administrators last year undertook an Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, which published a catalog of words and phrases to be removed from the school’s websites. Among the proscribed terms: “American,” “immigrant” and “blind study.” Stanford’s motto is “let the winds of freedom blow,” but many administrators and faculty want it to blow only from the left. Denouncing anti-Semitic protests wouldn’t chill academic freedom on campus; it would serve as a desperately needed show of moral clarity amid a tempest of false equivalence. But cowardly university leaders are afraid of provoking leftist professors and staff. Recall what happened to Stanford’s previous president. Marc Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist, announced his resignation in July following a series of reports in the student newspaper, the Stanford Daily, that accused him of research fraud. Much of the reporting turned out to be inaccurate, but that didn’t matter. The die had already been cast against him. On Nov. 29, 2022, freshman Theo Baker—whose parents, Susan Glasser and Peter Baker, are journalists at the New Yorker and the New York Times—reported that images in some of Mr. Tessier-Lavigne’s papers on Alzheimer’s disease appeared to have been manipulated and that his research was under “investigation for scientific misconduct” by the European Molecular Biology Organization Journal. Mr. Baker subsequently wrote several stories based on anonymous sources who alleged that Mr. Tessier-Lavigne had tried to conceal fraud in his studies. Mr. Baker focused particularly on a 2009 Alzheimer’s study in the journal Nature that Mr. Tessier-Lavigne led while employed by the drugmaker Genentech. The paper’s central findings failed to hold up on further study. Mr. Baker’s anonymous sources alleged that in 2011 Genentech investigated Mr. Tessier-Lavigne’s research for fraud and discovered the data had been falsified. The report also said Mr. Tessier-Lavigne had refused to retract the paper. Genentech and Mr. Tessier-Lavigne disputed these claims. Last December, Stanford’s board of trustees retained a legal team from Kirkland & Ellis to investigate the allegations. The team conducted more than 50 interviews with people connected to Mr. Tessier-Lavigne’s research and enlisted independent scientists to review more than 50,000 documents, including his digital records. issued a report that largely exonerated Mr. Tessier-Lavigne and described the Stanford Daily’s allegations about the 2009 Nature paper as “mistaken.” The investigators did find inadvertent errors in some of Mr. Tessier-Lavigne’s papers and also determined that some data had been manipulated by other unnamed scientists in his labs. But they concluded he “was not in a position where a reasonable scientist would be expected to have detected any such misconduct” and that he “did not have actual knowledge of the manipulation of research data that occurred in his lab and was not reckless in failing to identify such manipulation prior to publication.” Mr. Tessier-Lavigne accepted responsibility for the errors, resigned and requested that the scientific journals post corrections to his papers. The Stanford Daily hasn’t corrected the main inaccuracies in Mr. Baker’s reporting, which earned him a George Polk award for long-form investigative journalism. The New York Post last week reported that Mr. Baker has signed a book deal to “detail his freshman year and how his reporting for the school paper took down the institution’s head.” His sources for the flawed report appear to include Stanford faculty. Two stories cited an email from an unnamed professor who knew of scientists with “knowledge of the events.” A March 6 story noted that Ken Schultz, then chairman of the faculty senate, had called Jerry Yang, chairman of Stanford’s Board of Trustees, in the wake of the Nature allegations “to express the concern of several senators about Tessier-Lavigne’s capacity to lead.” It’s no secret that Mr. Tessier-Lavigne had many enemies on the faculty. He irritated leftist professors by refusing to denounce Hoover Institution scholars, such as Eric Hanushek and Scott Atlas, who argued against lockdowns and school closures. During a faculty meeting on Oct. 22, 2020, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences asked Mr. Tessier-Lavigne: “Will you, on behalf of the university, publicly disavow Scott Atlas’s irresponsible, unethical, and dangerous actions?” Mr. Tessier-Lavigne responded by reading the university’s statement on academic freedom. He obliquely criticized the harmful-language initiative (which was ended in the face of public ridicule) in January 2023, telling faculty that “we must exercise great care to ensure that any actions that are taken to foster inclusion do not, wittingly or unwittingly, have the effect of restricting speech.” He also boasted that “no speakers have been disinvited and no conferences have been canceled” under his watch. After a student mob shouted down Judge Kyle Duncan at a March 9 Stanford Law School Federalist Society event, Mr. Tessier-Lavigne issued an apology, noting “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways.” Whether or not faculty were behind the take-down of Mr. Tessier-Lavigne, the allegations of fraud became a convenient pretext to give him the heave-ho. The lesson is clear. When leaders at Stanford and other universities refrain from denouncing anti-Semitisim in the name of “free speech,” it’s probably because they’re scared of being driven into exile by radical professors. +++++++++++++++++++++ Only the U.S. Can Restore World Order Biden can end the chaos by demonstrating a strong commitment to victory in Israel and Ukraine. By Nadia Schadlow
Chaos is spreading throughout the world as a direct consequence of America’s failure to deter Russia, Iran and China. The balance of power in key regions is faltering, leading to instability and global disorder. Like it or not, the U.S. is the only force that can restore equilibrium. In a global conflict, as the Yale political scientist Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943) observed, success or failure in one region has “immediate and determining effect on the others.” Spykman emphasized the importance of preventing the rise of hegemonic powers whose “principles and ideals are opposed to the whole course of Western civilization.” This effort to check power in key regions of the world has been a mainstay of American foreign policy since the Cold War. Revisionist powers are on the rise and determined to disrupt the global order. Russia and Iran have each made destructive regional plays, while China is preparing for its own moves in the South China Sea and Taiwan. Compounding these demonstrations of power (and brutality) is the willingness of these countries to put aside their differences to collude against American interests. The revisionist powers see the U.S. as weak and in decline. The question is whether we can regain the initiative and restore balance. Since the mid-2000s the U.S. and its allies have forgotten the central goal of geopolitics: to maintain the balance of military power and thereby deter revisionist powers in critical regions. Many American policy makers thought soft power, not military might, would lead countries toward cooperation and liberalization. Instead, Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine set the stage for the first episode of regional disruption—Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Moscow reminded the world that despite its relative weaknesses, its ambitions to exert its power over Central Europe have remained constant. So far, Vladimir Putin’s war has caused more than 500,000 deaths, realigned world energy flows and food trade, and led to billions of dollars in economic losses. Hamas’s barbaric attacks in Israel sparked instability in a second critical theater, the Middle East. Iran is the regional power pulling the strings. For years Iran has shaped the playing field in the Middle East to its advantage. Despite sanctions, Tehran used its military and diplomatic tool kit skillfully. It was helped by the Obama administration’s deliberate shift to enhance Iran’s regional role and step away from the U.S. policy of containment. All the while, Iran increased support for an “axis of resistance.” Its terrorist allies Hezbollah and Hamas provided Iran with expeditionary proxy forces, changing the military balance of power in the region. The Biden administration’s relaxation of sanctions on sales of Iranian oil and its September agreement to release $6 billion to free five American hostages further emboldened Tehran. Money is fungible. With this new transfer, Iran was in a position to divert billions to spark additional regional mayhem. China is destabilizing a third key region of the world, Asia. Beijing is determined to control the South China Sea, crossroads of trillions of dollars of shipping. China’s island-building program and militarization of the region have extended Beijing’s control and are threatening freedom of navigation. China has stepped up its naval activities there, clashing with the Philippines and blocking its boats. Beijing’s pressure on Taiwan is growing. The Chinese military has surged aircraft and ships into the area as it refines its strategy to blockade the island nation. China has the world’s largest navy measured by number of vessels, with a combination of its military warships and its merchant-marine fleet around the world. Across these three regions—Central Europe, the Middle East and Asia—unnatural allies are supporting each other in pursuit of a new global equilibrium that significantly disadvantages the U.S. and its allies. A year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to mark their “no limits friendship,” China’s Xi Jinping observed that events “we had not seen for 100 years” were happening and that Russia and China were “driving these changes together.” Diplomatically, China played a key role in pressuring countries not to condemn Mr. Putin’s aggression. China’s economic support of Russia has grown, particularly through purchases of Russian oil, and it’s likely that Beijing has also supplied Moscow with weapons, parts and more. Tehran is funneling drones, artillery shells, ammunition and tank rounds to the Russian war effort. Some of this was likely reciprocated, given Moscow’s defense cooperation with Iran. Tehran has orders in for Russian fighter jets, attack helicopters, radars and combat trainer aircraft. Iranian pilots reportedly started training in Russia to fly the Sukhoi Su-35, an advanced fighter jet, in the spring of 2022. The challenge for the U.S. now is to restore balance in the world. The Biden administration’s management of the Israeli response in Gaza and the continuing war in Ukraine are crucial. America’s adversaries are watching. The U.S. can’t be passive in its support for allies. It isn’t enough to be the arsenal of democracy. America has unique military and intelligence capabilities that can help Israel and Ukraine defeat existential threats to their sovereignty. American diplomats must convince the Arab world—particularly the Gulf states—that a region dominated by Iran and roiled in conflict will doom their growing economies. If the U.S. succeeds, it will send a clear message to China about the perils of messing with America’s friends. Ms. Schadlow is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and Hoover Institution. She served as deputy national security adviser for strategy, 2017-18. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Obama is clever for sure. I believe he pauses when he speaks to falsely convey sincerity, he seeks the most convincing words to express what he says so as to gain audience approval. He is the "Music Man" and a total fraud. +++ Obama, Hamas and ‘Complicity’ The former president seeks to shift the blame for the attack on Israel. He ought to look in the mirror. By Elliot Kaufman Even Barack Obama supported Israel in dismantling Hamas, a senior Israeli official was eager to tell me early in the war. The former president said so in a 73-word statement on Oct. 9. But on Oct. 23, in a 1,130-word statement, Mr. Obama called for Israeli restraint. Now, on the “Pod Save America” podcast, Mr. Obama counsels “an admission of complexity.” In a part of the interview released Saturday, Mr. Obama says: “What Hamas did was horrific and there’s no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians is unbearable.” To get to the full truth, “you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree.” He adds: “As hard as I tried—I have the scars to prove it—but there’s a part of me that’s still saying, ‘Well, was there something else I could have done?’ ” Only a part? Mr. Obama sent Iran $1.7 billion in cash, released some $100 billion in frozen assets and unshackled Iranian industry. His plan to extricate the U.S. from the Middle East was suitably complex: find a rapprochement with Iran that would empower it to stabilize the region for us. Predictably, Tehran used the money to build up each front—Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Syria, Iraq and Yemen—in today’s war on Israel. The rest of Mr. Obama’s policy paved the way. In August 2012, he drew a “red line.” The U.S. would respond militarily if Syria used chemical weapons. When Syria did a year later, Mr. Obama blinked and then let Russia bail him out by pretending to remove all the chemical weapons. Russia never left Syria, and propping up Bashar al-Assad solidified its alliance with Iran. The Journal reports that Russia plans to give Hezbollah better air defenses in Lebanon, and Syria is a key Hezbollah staging ground and transit point for Iranian weapons. Mr. Obama pulled out of Iraq in 2011, only to see Iran-backed militias fill the vacuum. Once ISIS, which the president had dismissed as the “JV team,” established itself, reluctance to commit further to the region led the Obama and Trump administrations to work with the Iranians to defeat the group. This elevated Tehran’s Iraqi proxies, which have been attacking U.S. forces almost daily to pressure the U.S. to constrain Israel. Israel had an early chance to destroy Hamas in the 2008-09 Gaza war, but the incoming Obama administration signaled its displeasure. Israel stopped short, declaring a unilateral cease-fire. That only prepared the next war, in 2014, but overthrowing Hamas wasn’t even on the table with Mr. Obama in the White House. The Obama strategy of pressuring Israel and indulging the Palestinians made no progress toward peace. A 2009-10 Israeli settlement freeze was shrugged off. John Kerry shuttled around, banging his head against the wall called the “peace process.” Mr. Obama’s parting shiv—enabling a United Nations Security Council resolution that condemned the Jewish state and undermined its claim to Jerusalem—did nothing for Palestinians but indulge the fantasy that U.S. pressure on Israel will obviate the need for them to compromise. If everyone is responsible for this war, as Mr. Obama says, then Hamas becomes only one guilty party among many, and Oct. 7 a mere link in a long causal chain. Blame shifts to Israel. As the U.N. secretary-general put it, “the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.” But if anyone has been complicit in enabling Hamas’s atrocities, Barack Obama has. Mr. Kaufman is the Journal’s letters editor. ++++++++++++++
I suspect the Democrat Convention is going to be a disaster and they will get what they deserve. Why? Because they bought Obama's desire to convert America to a version of Islamism while the brainless stood by and allowed it to happen. The Trump haters were so obsessed with his horrible narcissistic personality they did not know how they were being suckered by Marxists, Soros and BLM type radicals. +++ The Democrats’ Hamas Caucus Could the convention in Chicago turn out to be an ugly rerun of 1968? By William McGurn
When Joe Biden picked Chicago as the venue for his party’s 2024 convention, the thought was that this heavily unionized Democratic city provided a perfect stage to showcase how Bidenomics was making life better for American workers. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who’d lobbied the president hard, was thrilled. Chicago is “your kind of town,” he told the president. Suddenly that theme is in jeopardy. The anti-Israel demonstrations breaking out all over—including one that left blood-red painted handprints on a White House gate over the weekend—are transforming the narrative. They’re also putting front and center the split between traditional Democrats who support Israel, like Mr. Biden, and a younger, more radical cohort that sees the conflict as colonialist Israelis warring on Palestinian innocents. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) on Friday expressed this dramatically by posting a video featuring footage of various protests mixed with clips of the president stating his support for Israel. The video ends with this message: “Joe Biden supported the genocide of the Palestinian people.” If something doesn’t change, the rift will be on full view at next summer’s convention, raising uncomfortable parallels to the troubled 1968 convention in Chicago that nominated Hubert Humphrey. There the tensions over Vietnam played out on Windy City streets in pitched battles between Mayor Richard Daley’s police and the thousands of antiwar protesters who had flocked to Chicago to make their point. It was a disaster. The signs this time around aren’t good. Already the war crimes committed against Israeli grandmothers, mothers and children—all the more grotesque because they were planned—are being deliberately erased. This is being done by advocates who hope to use Israel’s response to Oct. 7 to shift the narrative from Hamas’s barbarities to Palestinian victimhood. Israel’s problem—and Mr. Biden’s—is that if Israel does what it has to do, the war for Gaza will get uglier. How can it be otherwise, with the Israel Defense Forces above ground, Hamas hiding in its tunnels, and civilians forced to act as human shields? Every day, the reporting becomes more hostile toward Israel. Those who outright excuse Hamas are a minority in America, and they remain a minority in the Democratic Party. So like Humphrey in 1968, Mr. Biden will prevail in any fight inside the convention. But these activists don’t have to win to be successful. The aim is to disrupt and undermine. The president is no doubt aware that while Humphrey emerged from the 1968 convention winning both the nomination and the platform fight over Vietnam, he lost to Richard Nixon in November. Like Humphrey, while Mr. Biden has enraged the party’s antiwar wing, he isn’t entirely trusted by the hawks. For Humphrey, the price of getting President Lyndon B. Johnson to back him for the nomination was embracing LBJ’s war policy. For Mr. Biden, the pro-Israel wing appreciates his unequivocal rhetorical support but worries whether he’ll bail out when things get rough. A recent Quinnipiac poll highlights Mr. Biden’s dilemma inside his party. When asked about Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack, Democrats disapproved 49% to 33%. There is also a big divide by age: voters 18 to 34 disapprove of Israel’s response 52% to 32%. America Isn’t at War, but Iran Is October 16, 2023 It isn’t only protesters wearing keffiyehs and waving Palestinian flags, or members of “The Squad” like Ms. Tlaib. HuffPost reports that 51 Democratic National Committee employees signed a letter demanding that Mr. Biden publicly call for a cease-fire. Barack Obama is also twisting the knife. During a get-together with his former staffers, he condemned what Hamas did. But he also declared the need for “an admission of complexity.” This is the sophisticated way of saying moral equivalence, as the former president made clear when he added that “nobody’s hands are clean.” An email from Politico Playbook characterized his words this way: “The remarks are a striking jab at not only Israel, but against Obama’s own former VP: Joe Biden’s longstanding and relatively closer relationship with Netanyahu has led the current president to underscore Israel’s right to defend itself first and foremost. It also bucks the company line Democratic leaders have been using on this matter.” In other words, Mr. Biden’s fight for the soul of America may have to take a back seat to the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. In 2012, Democratic delegates at the convention in Charlotte, N.C., booed a platform vote recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Mr. Obama intervened personally to get that language in. Does any Democrat really believe Mr. Biden has the authority to quell any effort by anti-Israel protesters bent on ruining his convention? Because it’s coming. In 1968 antiwar protesters marching through Chicago’s Loop chanted “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” This weekend a new generation gathered outside the Biden White House. Their chant? “Hey hey, ho ho, Genocide Joe has got to go!” ++++++++++++++++++ 10 Things to Know About Hamas Tunnels 11/6/23 Israel enters new phase of war with Gaza City now encircled Seth J. Frantzman, 11/6/23 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Finally, as more evidence surfaces involving
"The Big Man's" lies and sellinghis office
for money "deporables" will begin to be more
expressive as well..
Add this to the inflation, prices of necessities,
level of interest rates, open borders, several
wars, riots,strikes and general national discord
Democrats are going to have some high hurdles
facing them +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment