Displaying posts published in

September 2019

No, Conservatives Shouldn’t Make Environmental Policy a Priority Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/12/no-conservatives-shouldnt-make-environmental-policy-a-priority-now/

Americans finally are getting a close look at what a future controlled by climate freaks would really look like—and they are justifiably alarmed.

As I wrote earlier this week, the Democratic Party is accomplishing what the Republican Party—conservatives in particular—failed to do for more than two decades: Exposing the general public to the radical, authoritarian, and wholly unrealistic agenda lurking behind the facade of the climate change movement.

The Green New Deal betrayed the climate crusade’s outlandish demands in its starkest, darkest terms yet, and a seven-hour climate change “town hall” on CNN this month featured Democratic presidential hopefuls promising everything from abortion and plastic straw bans to government-ordered veganism as solutions to halt supposed climate change. Democratic candidates promise to become more dystopian on this issue as they head into the heart of the 2020 campaign season.

So, presented with this gift, it is no time for Republicans and conservatives to take the boot off the throat of the collective climate propaganda machine.

That’s why I have a quibble with my publisher and pal, Chris Buskirk, over his recent missive encouraging conservatives to put environmental policy toward the top of our to-do list: “We’ve avoided making the environment a political priority for decades and the country is worse for it,” Buskirk wrote. “Conservatives should embrace this issue. It’s a chance to do good and to do well.”

In another time, I might partially agree with Buskirk’s sentiment. But not at this political moment.

Take Two Aspirin and Call Me by My Pronouns At ‘woke’ medical schools, curricula are increasingly focused on social justice rather than treating illness. By Stanley Goldfarb ******

https://www.wsj.com/articles/take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-by-my-pronouns-11568325291

The American College of Physicians says its mission is to promote the “quality and effectiveness of health care,” but it’s stepped out of its lane recently with sweeping statements on gun control. And that isn’t the only recent foray into politics by medical professionals. During my term as associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, I was chastised by a faculty member for not including a program on climate change in the course of study. As the Journal reported last month, such programs are spreading across medical schools nationwide.

Why have medical schools become a target for inculcating social policy when the stated purpose of medical education since Hippocrates has been to develop individuals who know how to cure patients?

A new wave of educational specialists is increasingly influencing medical education. They emphasize “social justice” that relates to health care only tangentially. This approach is the result of a progressive mind-set that abhors hierarchy of any kind and the social elitism associated with the medical profession in particular.

These educators focus on eliminating health disparities and ensuring that the next generation of physicians is well-equipped to deal with cultural diversity, which are worthwhile goals. But teaching these issues is coming at the expense of rigorous training in medical science. The prospect of this “new,” politicized medical education should worry all Americans.

Losers of the Third Democratic Debate By Tyler O’Neil

Loser: Kamala Harris.

Kamala’s bad debate night started when she addressed President Trump right off the cuff. She spoke to Trump “who we all know is watching.” At that very moment, Trump was on stage at the GOP retreat, as Townhall’s Storm Paglia noted. Then Harris tried to say “Yes, we can,” to Biden, who shut her down by referencing the Constitution.

In one of the most memorable moments of the night, moderator Linsey Davis slammed Harris for her flip-flops on criminal justice issues. “When you had the power, why didn’t you try to effect change then?” Davis asked — to loud applause from the audience.

Loser: Pete Buttigieg.

The mayor of South Bend did not stand out at the third Democratic debate. He got in a plug for his Douglas Plan — a kind of nationwide affirmative action scheme — but he did not have a strong moment. Toward the end, he told a sob story about living under Mike Pence when Pence was governor of Indiana. He did emerge as more hopeful on the race issue, stressing the importance of black entrepreneurship.

Loser: Julian Castro.

Castro attempted to reframe the debate around the issue of Joe Biden’s senility, but his attack on Biden did not work. Rather than hitting Biden on the former vice president’s many embarrassing gaffes, Castro attempted to get Biden to admit to a gaffe in the middle of the debate, and it backfired.

Loser: The Protesters.

Right after ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos asked Biden a question about resilience, protesters loudly interrupted. Their uncoordinated shouts became indecipherable. No one could tell why they were interrupting, and Bernie told the vice president to keep speaking and ignore the protesters.

While there were six winners and only four losers, Biden won big. For the first time, I saw a Joe Biden who could actually be president. Naturally, he will likely devolve into his usual gaffetastic self, but for at least this one night he inspired confidence, not mockery. If this debate matters, it largely helps him.

As for the other winners, they had standout moments but were unlikely to join the top three (with the exception of Warren). O’Rourke, Yang, Booker, and Klobuchar may have an outside chance to emerge as a dark horse, but that remains unlikely.

Bernie Sanders really tanked tonight, and Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg also did not have the performances they need to break into the top three.

If this debate were to really make an impact in the race, the 2020 Democratic primary would be shaping up to be a challenge between Biden and Warren

Winners of the Third Democratic Debate By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/winners-and-losers-of-the-third-democratic-debate/

The top ten Democrats faced off for the first time Thursday in the third Democratic debate. Frontrunner and former Vice President Joe Biden faced off with his two closest challengers, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg fought to hold on to their second-tier status, as five other candidates attempted to edge in.

Winner: Joe Biden.

The former vice president decided to go on offense Thursday night, and it worked well. He attacked Sanders and Warren on health care, pointing out the extremely high cost of Medicare for All and the fact that a fully single-payer overhaul would cause Americans to lose their health insurance.

Winner: Elizabeth Warren.

Liz Warren played it safe in this debate. She didn’t go after Biden and she mostly played to her strengths: mentioning her complicated policy plans, pushing for environmentalists and human rights activists to be at the table in trade talks with China, and reminding Americans that she was a schoolteacher.Warren has become a driving force of energy in the Democratic field in recent weeks, but that energy seemed muted this evening. Even so, her policy-heavy campaign seems well-tailored for success, especially if Biden and Bernie falter. She did not advance much tonight, but she didn’t falter, either.

Winner: Beto O’Rourke.

The third Democratic debate took place in Houston, Texas, Beto O’Rourke’s home turf. Debate moderators and candidates mentioned the shooting in El Paso, turning to pay homage to him as the local.

O’Rourke received loud applause for his line about gun confiscation: “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47!” he declared. Many liberals and journalists suggested this line defeated the argument for the Second Amendment and gun ownership.

Winner: Andrew Yang.

Yang received the lowest amount of time during the debate, but he used his time very well. He made news by announcing that he would give $1,000 per month away to ten families for one year to illustrate his central promise, the “Freedom Dividend,” a Universal Basic Income (UBI) strategy to replace many forms of welfare.

Winner: Cory Booker.

Booker proved well-spoken and surprisingly balanced on a few issues.

At one point, Castro attacked charter schools, declaring, “It is a myth that charter schools are better than public schools. They’re not.” Booker responded by insisting that in Newark he closed poor-performing charter schools but he supported charter schools that did well. (By the way, an exhaustive review of the data on charter schools found that charter elementary schools outperform traditional public schools in reading and math, while the superiority of charter high schools is less certain.)

Winner: Amy Klobuchar.

Klobuchar mostly had a forgettable debate performance, but she enjoyed a standout moment when discussing Bernie’s Medicare for All bill. “While Bernie wrote the bill, I read the bill, and on page 8, on page 8 of the bill, it says that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it. … I don’t think that’s a bold idea. I think it it’s a bad idea,” she declared.

Breaking Down the Report of an Imminent McCabe Indictment By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/andrew-mccabe-report-imminent-indictment/

McCabe has indicated that, if charged, he would claim the Justice Department was under pressure from the White House.

Federal prosecutors in Washington have recommended that criminal charges be filed against Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, and the Justice Department has rejected a last-ditch appeal by McCabe’s lawyers, according to a report on Thursday by Fox News. This clears the way for what appears to be McCabe’s imminent indictment.

Jesse Liu, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia (appointed by Trump), has reportedly decided that McCabe should be charged. The decision was based on a referral by the Justice Department’s inspector general (appointed by Obama), Michael Horowitz. In a comprehensive report last year, issued after a probe of a leak of investigative information to the media orchestrated by McCabe, Horowitz found that McCabe had misled investigators, including making false statements under oath. As we observed here when the IG’s report was released, the case laid out by Horowitz appears compelling.

The Fox report indicates that Liu signaled to McCabe’s lawyers that she was persuaded to file charges. McCabe’s lawyers then appealed that decision to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general (DAG). At least one source told Fox that McCabe’s team received an email from the Justice Department, which states: “The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.”

Boltonism must not be allowed to disappear Melanie Phillips

https://www.jns.org/opinion/boltonism-must-not-be-allowed-to-disappear/

In the wake of the national security advisor’s departure, members of the Trump administration have been at pains to stress that there will be no let-up in America’s policy of reimposing sanctions on Iran.

John Bolton’s departure from the Trump administration should have had the left cheering from the rafters.

Bolton has long been a bogeyman in liberal circles on account of his refusal to appease the enemies of America and the West, a disposition that the left regard as belligerent war-mongering.

When Bolton was made National Security Advisor, his liberal foes behaved as if U.S. President Donald Trump had signed up in person one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Now that Bolton’s appointment has abruptly terminated, though, there’s been no rejoicing from his ideological foes. That’s because their blind hatred of Trump means he can never do anything right. So Bolton’s ouster is merely viewed sourly as further proof of Trump’s psychological flaws.

The curious fact, however, is that the left hate Bolton for reasons very similar to Trump’s own inability to see eye-to-eye with him. For the left have more in common with Trump than they would ever care to acknowledge.

On foreign policy, both are isolationists, although for different reasons.

The left never support the West fighting wars in its own interests, viewing it as innately bad and oppressive, while its enemies are inescapably its victims and therefore morally above reproach.

For his part, Trump wants to end America’s involvement in foreign wars and doesn’t want to get involved in any new ones.

Is England Still Part of Europe? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/england-europe-never-fully-integrated/

Britain has a last chance to re-embrace the free-market democratic world that it once helped to create.

British prime minister Boris Johnson is desperate to translate the British public’s June 2016 vote to leave the European Union into a concrete Brexit.

But the real issue is far older and more important than whether 52 percent of Britain finally became understandably aggrieved by the increasingly anti-democratic and German-controlled European Union.

England is an island. Historically, politically, and linguistically, it was never permanently or fully integrated into European culture and traditions.

The story of Britain has mostly been about conflict with France, Germany, or Spain. The preeminence of the Royal Navy, in the defiant spirit of its sea lords, ensured that European dictators from Napoleon to Hitler could never set foot on British soil. As British admiral John Jervis reassured his superiors in 1801 amid rumors of an impending Napoleonic invasion, “I do not say, my lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea.”

Britain’s sea power, imperialism, parliamentary government, and majority-Protestant religion set it apart from its European neighbors — and not just because of its geographical isolation.

U.S. Attorney Recommends Bringing Charges against Andrew McCabe: Report By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-attorney-recommends-bringing-charges-against-andrew-mccabe-report/

U.S. attorney Jessie Liu has recommended that the Department of Justice bring charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators, Fox News reported Thursday.

McCabe appealed Liu’s decision to deputy attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, who rejected his plea.

“The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office,” reads an email sent to McCabe’s legal team by the DOJ, which was obtained by Fox News.

The potential charges relate to McCabe’s allegedly misleading FBI investigators about his role in the leaking of classified information related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

McCabe, who was recently hired by CNN as a national security analyst, became acting director of the FBI in April 2017 following the firing of James Comey.

Attorney general Jeff Sessions then fired McCabe in March 2018 over the DOJ inspector general’s finding that he “lacked candor” when asked by Comey, and later two investigators, whether he leaked information about the Clinton email probe to a Wall Street Journal reporter.

While speaking with a reporter, McCabe allegedly confirmed the existence of the Clinton investigation, in violation FBI policy, by defending his agents’ prerogative to look into the Clinton Foundation as part of the probe.

Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You: ‘Hey Guys!’ Is Now Off Limits, According to the Language Police

https://pjmedia.com/trending/dont-say-we-didnt-warn-you-hey-guys-is-now-off-limits-according-to-the-language-police/

Here we go again. As illustrated in the extremely insensitive Morning Briefing written by PJ Media’s Stephen Kruiser yesterday, there are some words we just can’t say anymore. The PC Language Police are issuing directives again in condescending tone. Your speech patterns and colloquialisms like “hey guys” are sexist and offensive. (Got that Kruiser? I’m reporting you if you do it again.)

“Now This News” is behind this particular video. NTN is owned by “Huffington Post” and is considered a fake news outlet by Punditfact, a fact-checking site. NTN published a video claiming that CNN deleted a poll that showed Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton. Fact checkers found that to be false and gave NTN a “pants on fire” rating. NTN also claimed that Bill Clinton didn’t sign NAFTA and called Donald Trump a liar. Fact checkers also found that to be false. “Clinton signed the deal on Dec. 8, 1993. His speech that day is available in print form and on YouTube,” they reported.

Considering NTN’s history with spreading false information, perhaps we should ignore this latest ridiculous claim. But the idea behind the “hey guys” controversy isn’t new. Just a few months ago at the Democrat Socialists got triggered by similar language. Paul Joseph Watson’s video about it shouldn’t be missed.

EXCERPT FROM MARK STEYN ON GENERAL MATTIS

Insofar as Islam got a look in from officialdom, it was a passing reference in the speech of Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis:

Maniacs disguised in false religious garb thought by hurting us they could scare us that day.

Well, whoever they are, these “maniacs” can evidently scare grizzled hard men called “Mad Dog” into concluding that, when it comes to mentioning the I-word, discretion is the better part of valor. “False religious garb” means we’re back to the standard Euro-squish line that all this Allahu Akbar I’m-ready-for-my-virgins stuff is a “perversion” of the real Islam, which is a peaceful faith practiced by millions of people for whom self-detonation is an unwelcome distraction from traditional activities such as clitoridectomies, honor killings and throwing sodomites off tall buildings. Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but these “maniacs” are hijacking this “religious garb” in order to peddle a “false” vision of Islam. Foaming-canine-wise, Mad Dog sounds about as mad as, say, Theresa May. I take it that, even in today’s politically correct military, you can’t earn the epithet “Mad Dog” simply by handing out diversity awards to the Transgender Outreach Liaison Officer of the Month, and General Mattis served honorably and impressively in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, when it comes to strategic clarity, that may be the problem.