Displaying posts published in

May 2019

Political Correctness Blinds Us To The Causes Of Anti-Semitism By David Harsanyi

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/political-correctness-blinds-us-causes-anti-semitism/

“As Evelyn Gordon at Commentary noted not long ago, American Jews might believe that “rightist governments enable anti-Semitism” in Europe, but polls show that Jews feel safer, sometimes by a 20-point margin, in places like Poland, Hungary, and Romania—which, maybe not coincidentally, also have low numbers of Muslim immigrants—than they do in countries like France and Germany, where anti-Jewish violence is spiking.”

The New York Times blames Israel for engendering hatred while downplaying some inconvenient facts.

“Speak up, now, when you glimpse evidence of anti-Semitism, particularly within your own ranks, or risk enabling the spread of this deadly virus,” advises a New York Times editorial that fails to mention the words “Ihan Omar,” “Rashida Tlaib,” “Women’s March,” “Black Congressional Caucus,” or anything about the Democratic Party’s complicity in enabling these people and groups, for that matter.

To be fair, as far as New York Times editorials go, this isn’t the worst. It does, however, engage in the ugly leftist habit of blaming Jews for engendering hatred against themselves while downplaying inconvenient facts about anti-Semitism in Europe.

Earlier this year, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs pointed out that nearly 90 percent of European Jews have suffered some form of anti-Semitic threat, insult, or assault. Of those polled, 30 percent identified the perpetrator as “someone with an extremist Muslim view,” 21 percent as someone with left-wing political views, and 13 percent as someone with right-wing politics.

Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law By Sean Davis

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/mueller-just-proved-his-entire-operation-was

At a hastily-arranged Wednesday press conference, Special Counsel Robert Mueller proved that he was never interested in justice or the rule of law.

If there were any doubts about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s political intentions, his unprecedented press conference on Wednesday should put them all to rest. As he made abundantly clear during his doddering reading of a prepared statement which repeatedly contradicted itself, Mueller had no interest in the equal application of the rule law. He gave the game, and his nakedly political intentions, away repeatedly throughout his statement.

“It is important that the office’s written work speak for itself,” Mueller said, referring to his office’s 448-page report. Mueller’s report was released to the public by Attorney General William Barr nearly six weeks ago. The entire report, minus limited redactions required by law, has been publicly available, pored through, and dissected. Its contents have been discussed ad nauseum in print and on television. The report has been speaking for itself since April 18, when it was released.

If it’s important for the work to speak for itself, then why did Mueller schedule a press conference in which he would speak for it weeks after it was released? The statement, given the venue in which it was provided, is self-refuting.

Strange Claims about Britain’s European Elections By Douglas Murray

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/strange-claims-about-britains-european-elections/

After the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump, an awful lot of bad articles and books poured forth. Among the worst were those that claimed we had entered a “post truth” era. Oxford Dictionaries — never missing an opportunity to look like the cheapest publicity hounds — declared “post truth” to be their Word of the Year for 2016.

In fact, as I have pointed out here before, it is more true to say that we have entered an era in which (to borrow a phrase from the Irish writer Kevin Myers) the truth becomes “whatever you’re having yourself.”

The aftermath of the European Elections in Britain has provided a fine example of this. Of course the fact that Britain had European Elections this year is in itself something to marvel at. Three years ago the British people voted to leave the European Union. But thanks to the ineptitude and malfeasance of nearly an entire political class there we were again last week, invited to the polls to vote on who we would like to represent us at a body the majority of the public voted three years ago to leave.

But what a response. By any honest analysis the night belonged to Nigel Farage’s newly formed Brexit party, which won 31.6 percent of the overall vote, winning 29 seats. The next-largest party was the Liberal Democrats, just over 20 percent of the vote and 16 seats, which is quite a lead for Farage. The runners-up of Labour (ten seats), the Greens (seven seats), and the Conservatives (four seats) struggled to make their performance look like a success. But the most striking thing about the reaction to the results was the effort to claim them as evidence that Britain wants to remain in the EU.

‘Not Exonerated’ Is Not a Standard Any Free Country Should Accept By Charles C. W. Cooke

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/not-exonerated-is-not-a-standard-any-free-country-should-accept/

I’m sorry to be a broken record on this, but this line from Robert Mueller infuriates me:

“If we had had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so.” Mueller

— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) May 29, 2019

That’s not how it works in America. Investigators are supposed to look for evidence that a crime was committed, and, if they don’t find enough to contend that a crime was a committed, they are supposed to say “We didn’t find enough to contend that a crime was committed.” They are not supposed to look for evidence that a crime was not committed and then say, “We couldn’t find evidence of innocence.”

  

I understand that Mueller was in an odd position. I understand, too, that this wasn’t a criminal trial. But I don’t think those norms are rendered any less important by those facts. By asking the executive to investigate itself, it was guaranteed — yes, guaranteed — that we’d have a fight over “obstruction of justice.” For the architect of that investigation to keep saying “We aren’t exonerating our target” is extraordinary. Innocence is the default position in this country. If a person doesn’t have enough evidence that someone committed a crime to contend that a crime was committed, he is obliged to presume his innocence. “Not exonerated” is not a standard in our system, and it shouldn’t be one in our culture, either.

Was Brennan’s ‘Intelligence Bombshell’ the Steele Dossier? By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/john-brennan-steele-dossier-trump-russia-investigation/

Signs point to yes.

I n a prior column, I addressed the public debate over Bill Barr’s authority to declassify intelligence regarding the Obama administration’s Trump-Russia investigation. Lurking behind this debate, we should understand, is that administration’s handling of the Steele dossier: a compilation of faux intelligence reports.

The dossier was, of course, generated by the Fusion GPS firm — principally, by British spy–turned–hack-for-hire Christopher Steele and journalist-turned-fabulist Glenn Simpson. The dossier is a slipshod, unverified opposition-research screed, sponsored by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Its sensational allegations of a Trump-Putin conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election (including by hacking and disseminating Democratic emails) were never verified. Nor was its salacious claim that the Kremlin possessed a video recording of Trump engaging in sexual hijinks, and thus could blackmail him into doing Russia’s bidding if he were elected.

Suffice it to say that the Obama-administration officials involved in pushing the dossier are running for the hills to distance themselves from it, particularly after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report effectively rejected it. Most prominent in this regard is former CIA director John Brennan.

Brennan is as hyper-political an intelligence official as we have ever had. And when called on his excesses, such as the CIA’s spying on the Senate during his watch, his default mode is to misrepresent what was done and then frustrate the investigative process. On the dossier, he is playing to type.

Why can’t you price compare the cost of a medical procedure? 

https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u=2cf2a73e6220e59e3c1c4a60c&id=7e453c34e9&e=0c8ccf8e98

The healthcare industry is broken.Both parties want to change the way our nation approaches healthcare… the question is, how?
Here’s the heart of the issue: the industry needs a transparency revolution.

Why is it that you can’t cost compare the price of healthcare services the same way you’d compare any other major financial decision? It’s illogical at best and corrupt at worst. 

Our Honorary Chairman, Dr. Tom Coburn, appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss this exact issue.
He lays out a recommended national policy that could change everything.

Jurisprudence and the Failed Coup By Stephen B. Presser

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/28/jurisprudence-and-the-failed-coup/

The indispensable Victor Davis Hanson recently noted, “Real coups against democracies rarely are pulled off by jack-booted thugs in sunglasses or fanatical mobs storming the presidential palace. More often, they are the insidious work of supercilious bureaucrats, bought intellectuals, toady journalists, and political activists who falsely project that their target might at some future date do precisely what they are currently planning and doing—and that they are noble patriots, risking their lives, careers, and reputations for all of us, and thus must strike first.”

He was discussing what we are now beginning to understand was the attempt to oust Donald Trump begun by officials in the Obama Administration, including certainly former FBI Director James Comey, assistant director Andrew McCabe, former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, and quite possibly President Obama himself.

This will, in the long light of history, be regarded as the greatest misuse of governmental power ever to appear in our politics, and yet there has been very little attention paid to how this could occur and why at this particular time in our political development.

Trump Dominates the Opposition By Taking Them Seriously By Karin McQuillan

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/28/trump-dominates-the-opposition-by-taking-them-seriously/

When our nephew was 9 years old, he posed an unending series of questions: who would win in a fight, a lion or a crocodile? A gorilla or a shark? Those questions come to mind as we watch President Trump face off against his political opponents. On one side, President Trump, on the other, the entire Democratic Party-media complex, and their enablers among the GOP establishment. It is President Trump who comes out on top in each major battle.

Do not underestimate the president’s opponents, however. They are not giving up and returning to civic norms of civil bipartisanship. Democrats have had tremendous success in getting out their twisted message that Trump is a menace to the nation. It is everywhere in the mainstream media, on Google and Yahoo, on Facebook and Twitter. They have suppressed President Trump’s popularity despite the fantastic job he is doing on jobs, the economy, trade and geopolitics.

After the collapse of the attempted Russia-collusion coup, and the arrival of Attorney General William Barr, that three-year dynamic has shifted to President Trump’s favor.

Yet the Democrats have hardly missed a beat. They have pivoted to a multitude of personal investigations, to weird accusations that Barr and Trump are suppressing evidence, while also protesting the declassification of documents. Democrats are still screaming “constitutional crisis” and talking of impeachment—all meant to taint Trump’s image with no-information voters.

Do not mistake the Democrats for a joke, no matter how ludicrous their actions look from this side of the reality divide.

The Palestinian War on the Trump Peace Plan by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14298/palestinians-vs-trump-peace-plan

In the past few days, the Gaza-based groups have issued several statements hinting that they would use all means, including terrorism, to foil the US peace plan.

What is perhaps most worrying for the Arab leaders are the threats coming from Iran’s puppets — Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. It now remains to be seen whether the Arab heads of state will be deterred by these threats or ignore them at the risk of becoming the Palestinians’ terror targets.

Clearly, the very Palestinians who are boycotting a conference — whose aim is to help them move beyond their leadership-imposed economic devastation — will wind up the big losers in this spiteful scenario of hate. This time, however, it also seems that the Palestinians will not only deprive themselves of billions of dollars, but will also damage — perhaps irrevocably — their relations with influential Arab countries. By all accounts, the Palestinians appear to be heading toward another “nakba” (catastrophe).

The Palestinians seem to be moving on two fronts to thwart US President Donald Trump’s plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the “Deal of the Century.”

The Palestinian Authority and its political allies in the West Bank have launched a diplomatic and media campaign to rally worldwide support for their rejection of Trump’s upcoming plan. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian extremist groups, for their part, are already hinting that they will resort to violence in an effort to thwart the “Deal of the Century.”

Last week, Hamas called on Bahrain not to allow the “Zionist enemy to defile its lands” by attending the economic conference.

Turning the Tables on “Global Zero” by Peter Huessy and David A. Deptula

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14268/global-zero-nuclear-modernization

As it turns out, the modernization of America’s nuclear deterrent would require, at most, only around 3% of the annual defense budget.

“International arms control relies on adherence to reciprocal obligations and nations should not be required to subject themselves to unilateral observance of them. Arms control more generally is undermined by violations going unchallenged.” — Forces Network, UK, April 4, 2019.

“Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping continue to expand and modernize their nuclear arsenals. Future arms-control agreements must take into account both the Russian and Chinese threats, while ensuring we don’t place one-sided nuclear restrictions on ourselves.” — Senator Tom Cotton; May 13, 2019.

“We must… realize that America will not be able to achieve the necessary changes to New START unless it is negotiating from a position of strength. That means Congress must invest in the modernization of our nuclear triad and the additional low-yield capabilities called for in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. These investments are critical to America’s ability to rein in China and Russia.” — Representative Liz Cheney; May 13, 2019.

Two narratives that provided justification for cutting America’s defense budget in the 1970s and 1990s — détente and the “end of history” — had a key component in common: Both were based on the assumption that existential national-security threats to the United States were either exaggerated or a thing of the past.

In each narrative, this assumption proved to be false.

Détente favored the Soviet Union so markedly in terms of its “correlation of forces” — the balance of conventional and nuclear power — that victory over the U.S. was in sight. Détente also fueled U.S.S.R. expansionism. More than 20 countries were subjected to Soviet aggression, coups, revolutions or wars of national liberation.