Displaying posts published in

November 2021

The Breathtaking Allegations Swirling Around the Brookings Institution

https://amac.us/the-breathtaking-allegations-swirling-around-the-brookings-institution/

Early this month, in yet another blow to “Russiagate,” Igor Danchenko, a key contributor to reports alleging a conspiracy between Russia and Donald Trump, was arrested for lying to the FBI. The indictment states that Danchenko repeatedly told Bureau agents that the information contained within the now-discredited Steele Dossier was sourced from Russia. In reality, the indictment claims, the accusations that suggested deep ties between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia were largely derived from “chatter and gossip circulating in American political circles” (and that is describing this compilation of lies generously). Now, one of D.C.’s premier “nonpartisan” think tanks, the Brookings Institution, appears to be enmeshed in the controversy.

For five years, accusations ranging from a conspiracy theory that Trump was an acquired Russian asset to Vladimir Putin “hacking” the 2016 election were largely derived from this dossier and promoted as verified fact across much of the mainstream media. Regarding the arrest, the left-leaning outlet The Nation published an article by Aaron Mate that referred to the Steele Dossier and the media’s fixation with it as “a case study in mass hysteria and media credulity.”

While this latest revelation has effectively severed any last shreds of credibility the Steele Dossier might have had, it raises new questions as to how such a baseless conspiracy theory was accepted as truth by the media and virtually every elected Democrat. In an ironic twist, while the Steele Dossier exposed nothing about Trump, the establishment reaction to the Steele Dossier has revealed corruption and partisan manipulation across the mainstream media, and now, appears to implicate numerous figures associated with the Brookings Institution.

The Brookings Institution is a 105-year-old think tank that purports to “represent diverse points of view.” Danchenko worked at the organization for several years under “Russian Expert” Fiona Hill (who, very interestingly, went on to play a key role on the National Security Council in the Trump administration, and was a “star” witness against the President at Trump’s first impeachment). According to the Wall Street Journal, Brookings was where Danchenko received his “entrée” into the inner circles of “America’s liberal foreign-policy elite.” It was Fiona Hill who introduced him to ex-spy Christopher Steele. As noted by Fox News Contributor Jonathan Turley, “Brookings appears so often in accounts related to the Russian collusion scandal that it could be Washington’s alternative to the Kevin Bacon parlor game. It appears that many of these figures are within six degrees of Brookings.”

While the think tank purports to be “nonpartisan,” the role of Brookings scholars and personnel in the “Trump Resistance” movement has raised serious questions about the organization’s activities.

Texas Party Switcher Is Latest Ominous Sign for Democrats . By Susan Crabtree

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/11/19/texas_party_switcher_is_latest_ominous_sign_for_democrats_146766.html

Ryan Guillen had been a Democratic member of the Texas legislature, representing a sprawling district south of San Antonio, for nearly two decades. This week he jumped ship for the Republican Party, blaming Democrats for leaving him, not the other way around.

Normally such a move would make local and state news, but certainly not prime-time national coverage. Yet, on Wednesday night, Fox News’ Laura Ingraham gleefully cited the defection as further proof that “truly smart” Democrats are abandoning a sinking ship. While Guillen is a state lawmaker whose switch won’t impact which party holds power in Washington, there’s one sign that this may not be an isolated example: At least nine congressional House Democrats have  announced they are not seeking reelection next year. More are expected to follow.

Highlighting the shifting political terrain in South Texas isn’t just a partisan exercise. The New York Times’ Tom Edsall this week cited evidence that President Biden’s immigration record and Democrats’ progressive agenda is hurting them with traditional-base voters, especially Hispanics in Texas border counties.

“Democrats shouldn’t panic,” Edsall wrote. “They should go into shock.”

Explaining his switch to the GOP, Guillen provided more fodder for veteran campaign consultant James Carville and others warning Democrats to rein in their left wing. The 44-year-old anti-abortion and pro-gun lawmaker cited the defund-the-police push and the climate change movement, which he said is “destroying” the Lone Star state’s oil and gas industry, along with the “chaos at the border.”

“Friends, something is happening in South Texas, and many of us are waking up to the fact that the values of those in Washington, D.C., are not our values, not the values of most Texans,” he said at a press conference Monday with Gov. Greg Abbott and House Speaker Dade Phelan, both Republicans.

Democrats quickly pointed out that Guillen made the switch only after the GOP-led redistricting process turned his already Republican-leaning district scarlet. Texas is the only state to gain two congressional seats after the 2020 census, and Republicans control the state legislature and governor’s mansion, and thus the redistricting process.  

Yet Guillen wasn’t exaggerating when he said there’s a significant political sea change taking place in South Texas. His move was the latest sign of a rightward shift in the Rio Grande region in recent years. Donald Trump won Guillen’s district by 13 percentage points in 2020; just four years earlier, Hillary Clinton carried it by the same margin. The voters still chose Guillen by 17 points last year, but the new map could have threatened such margins for him in the future. The newly formed district voted for Trump by 25 points.

Unprecedented by Michael Anton On the novelty of our cultural predicament.

https://newcriterion.com/issues/2021/12/unprecedented

The theme is “Western civilization at the crossroads.” Far be it from me to doubt that the West is on the precipice of something enormous. But “crossroads” implies a map. Do we have one? Is a piece of paper showing the way forward—whether predictive or hopeful—even possible?

I’ve noticed that a lot of people more or less “on my side,” or who see things basically as I do, are extremely confident that they know what is going to happen next. Their certainty is entirely independent of what they think they know.

Some believe that the end—the collapse of present ruling arrangements—is imminent, if not tomorrow or next week, then soon, within a year or five. Others assert that the present regime is stable and not only can but will last for decades or even centuries. Some insist that the regime will fall of its own incompetence, others that its end will require an external push—which some are certain will come, and others are equally sure will not.

When I have thought about this, I have been in some part inclined to the opinion that present arrangements are unstable and may be approaching their end. Yet in thinking it through further, I am forced to admit that our times are marked by so many unprecedented trends and events that making predictions seems foolhardy.

Both Rome and America were founded by kings—or, in our case, under the auspices of a king.

But before going into those differences, let’s first consider the one historical parallel that all sides of this debate draw on for precedent: the rise, peak, decline, and fall of Rome. At first glance, the two cases seem to have a lot in common. Not only was the United States founded by men educated in the classics who took Roman pseudonyms and named the government’s top legislative body after Rome’s, and not only did those founders revive republicanism after centuries of abeyance following the transformation of the Roman republic into an empire, but our country’s history itself seems to have tracked Rome’s, if not precisely then certainly thematically.

The Rittenhouse Verdict Glenn Greenwald

https://rumble.com/vphnor-the-rittenhouse-veredict.html

The 18-year-old defendant Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted by a jury of his peers on all charges on Friday afternoon. Rittenhouse, accused of various counts of murders stemming from his shooting of three people at a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020, insisted that he acted in legitimate self defense. A unanimous jury appeared to agree, and Rittenhouse is now a free man.

I will have much more to say on this verdict and the reaction to it, but immediately after the verdict was delivered, I went live on Rumble to provide my views of why, after having watched the entire trial, I believed this verdict was just, and why the media narrative was particularly deceitful and morally repellent. The video is 45-minutes long and can be watched here, at this link.

Don’t Let China Overshadow the Russia Threat BY Lawrence J. Haas

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/dont-let-china-overshadow-russia-threat-196596

Even at this extremely polarized time in Washington, a bipartisan consensus continues to grow that China now represents the biggest threat to the United States.

President Joe Biden is implementing a “pivot to Asia” that President Barack Obama first enunciated, inking a new U.S. alliance with Britain and Australia that will help the latter deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific. Meanwhile, as Biden and China’s Xi Jinping prepared to chat this week, the House Armed Services Committee’s top Republican, Mike Rogers, called China’s Communist Party “the greatest threat to our nation today.”

Currently, however, some of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints emanate not from China but from Russia. They remind us that—while we must address China’s multifaceted efforts to supplant America as the world’s leading power—we also need to retain our focus on Russia’s machinations under the leadership of its strongman president, Vladimir Putin.

Putin has sent nearly one hundred thousand Russian troops to its border with Ukraine, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, setting off alarm bells in Washington and Europe that he’s planning to invade.

The alarm bells are particularly loud for at least two reasons. First, Russia has attacked Ukraine before, most prominently in 2014 when it annexed the Crimean Peninsula, triggering sanctions against Russia by the United States, European Union (EU), other countries, and international organizations.

Second, Russia’s present troop surge dwarfs its surge to the border of last spring, which also alarmed Washington and Europe. Putin later sent some of those troops back to their bases, easing concerns at that time, but Washington is now worried that—in the words of Congressman Mike Turner, a Republican on the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees—“Russia has different intentions this time.”