Displaying posts published in

September 2023

The Biden crime family is our own reality-TV mafia show You cannot make this saga up. And you don’t have to Roger Kimball

https://thespectator.com/topic/the-biden-crime-family-is-our-own-reality-tv-mafia-show/

I have been meaning to weigh in on [cue scary music] Special Counsel David Weiss’s sham indictment of Hunter Biden on felony gun charges for a few days. I am glad I waited. 

It’s not that I have changed my mind about the indictments, or company man Weiss. Everyone knows he is on the job as an interior decorator, whose primary task is to produce window dressing for the Department of Injustice so that its two-tier deployment of police power is not too obvious to the casual onlooker.

Weiss has supposedly been investigating Hunter Biden for the last five years. Wouldn’t you know it, the statute of limitation on many of the tax charges is passing by like that herd of cows outside your train window even as I write.  

Biden fils might have gotten away with the kit, cat and caboodle had not District Judge Maryellen Noreika noticed how fishy Weiss’s original glucose-saturated plea bargain really was. “What, this deal calls for immunity from all criminal charges now and forever, so help you crack?” Yep. And no jail for the forgetful laptop owner either. You can bet your .38-caliber Colt Cobra Special Gauleiter Garland’s myrmidons would not try to sneak something like that past a judge on your behalf.  

No sooner was Weiss’s three-count indictment announced than alert (i.e., non-lackey) commentators savaged it as the Potemkin-village piece of theater it is. 

As Impeachment Inquiry Looms, Half Say Biden’s Been Dishonest About Foreign Deals: I&I/TIPP Poll Terry Jones

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/09/20/as-impeachment-inquiry-looms-half-say-bidens-been-dishonest-about-foreign-deals-ii-tipp-poll/

President Biden will soon be officially scrutinized by Congress for evidence he committed impeachable acts while serving as Barack Obama’s vice president and possibly after. But even before that investigation begins, a plurality of voters already don’t believe Biden’s repeated denials of involvement in son Hunter’s far-flung business affairs, the I&I/TIPP Poll found.

“How honest has Biden been about his involvement in the business dealings of his son Hunter Biden with foreign entities?” the national online I&I/TIPP Poll asked 1,351 Americans from Aug. 30-Sept. 1. The poll has a margin of error of +/-2.7 percentage points.

The response will likely give little comfort to either Biden or the Democratic Party at large.

Among those responding, 48% called Biden either “not very honest” (14%) or “not at all honest” about his business dealings with Hunter, compared to the 36% who believed Joe Biden has been either “very honest” (19%) or “somewhat honest” (17%). Another 15% said they were “not sure.”

As might be expected for such a hot-button question, the political schism on the answers was very large. Just 16% of Democrats responded Biden was “not very honest” or “not at all honest.” That compares with 85% of Republicans and 53% of independents.

Meanwhile, just 10% of GOP followers and 22% of independents described Biden as honest when it comes to his business affairs, versus 68% of Democrats.

Annals of Government-Run Medicine Socialized health care is failing again. James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/annals-of-government-run-medicine-d24f4656?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

One of the world’s most celebrated socialized medical systems is doing what socialized medical systems do: limiting patient care. Pending work stoppages could mean that the worst is yet to come for patients of England’s National Health Service.

For obvious reasons, American politicians seeking an even greater federal role in U.S. health care avoid discussing the staggering privations under Marxist regimes in places like Cuba and Venezuela. Instead, pols like Sen. Bernie Sanders (socialist, Vt.) point to government-run health systems within largely free, developed economies. But the U.K. is another example they’ll want to avoid.

Josephine Franks reports for Sky News that senior doctors, called consultants in Britain, will be joining their less experienced colleagues in withholding treatment:

Consultants and junior doctors are set to strike for several more days this week and early next month, bringing more chaos to the NHS after several months of walkouts and delayed appointments…
A health chief said the NHS is in “uncharted territory” due to the strikes, with thousands of patient appointments expected to be cancelled.
Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, said this week’s strike action “can’t become the status quo”.

Sadly it can. If there’s one brutal lesson of government-run health care it’s that things can always get worse. Turning doctors into unionized government bureaucrats brings a host of problems, including the fact that politicians, not patients, decide what doctors are paid. This is of course a problem in the U.S. as well. England is a sort of preview of just how badly government management can mangle the incentives to provide medical services—and the duty to provide care. Ms. Franks continues:

On the picket lines of the March strike, junior doctors told Sky News why they were striking and described having to borrow money off family for medical exams, watching colleagues leave for better paid jobs abroad and how they were struggling to pay rent.

If anyone asks Mr. Sanders to comment, no doubt he will rail about the British government not spending enough, just as his answer to every question about U.S. health care involves a greater burden on taxpayers and fewer free choices for consumers.

The Irrelevant United Nations The annual gabfest in New York underscores its global failures.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/united-nations-general-assembly-iran-china-russia-ukraine-biden-administration-fc4aa8c?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

New York City this week is full of dignitaries and functionaries from around the world for the United Nations General Assembly, and President Biden chipped in with his annual speech on Tuesday. The Lady Godiva question no one wants to ask is: Why?

Amid the mountain of words this week, what will be accomplished? In the emerging world order of rogue regimes and multi-polar power centers, what good does the U.N. do anymore?

The Presidents of Russia, China and France and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom didn’t even show up. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi made an appearance to lecture about American perfidy. In a show of its respect for the U.N., Iran expelled the U.N.’s most experienced nuclear-weapons inspectors on the eve of Mr. Raisi’s visit. The U.N. has likewise been helpless as North Korea ignores Security Council resolutions and sanctions to expand its nuclear program.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky made a rare trip to New York on Tuesday to make the moral case for support against Russia’s invasion. But the U.N. has been worse than useless during the Ukraine conflict. Russia’s veto in the Security Council with Chinese support has blocked any serious response to the Kremlin’s marauding. The one U.N. contribution was to help negotiate a deal to allow grain exports from Ukraine. But Vladimir Putin recently nixed that agreement.

China’s Communist Party Infiltrates American K-12 Schools by Robert Williams

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19979/china-infiltrates-american-schools

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has, or has had, ties to 143 school districts in the United States, including 20 near military bases, through its “Confucius Classrooms,” according to a recent report, “Little Red Classrooms: China’s Infiltration of American K-12 Schools” by Parents Defending Education (PDE), a grassroots organization.

Attention to Confucius Institutes has mainly been centered around colleges and universities, but less so on K-12 education. This means that Chinese state propaganda is probably now pretty much all over American K-12 classrooms.

PDE observed that more than $17 million had been spent by the CCP on Confucius classrooms in the US between the years 2009-2023.

“Three of the nation’s top science and technology high schools have ties to Chinese government affiliated programs including Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has had ties to Tsinghua University High School—the high school affiliated with one of China’s top military schools, Tsinghua University…” — Peter Wood, President, National Association of Scholars, Daily Signal, August 15, 2023.

“[W]hat’s happening in these schools is that they learn that China is a benevolent institution, the heir of an ancient civilization that means nothing but goodwill to the rest of the world… And the notion that you can take children who have some aptitude for the hard sciences and math and get them to view China as a potential partner and friend… all through their educational careers. We’re creating an assembly line for talented young men and women who will be unable to distinguish the American national interest from the Chinese national interest. They’re getting blurred together at a young age and that’s very difficult to undo once it’s done.” [Emphasis added.] — Peter Wood, Daily Signal, August 15, 2023.

Wood noted that CCP infiltration of American K-12 schools is “almost everywhere.”

“[I]t’s concentrated in the feeder schools to elite education, which means mostly West Coast and East Coast, but not exclusively those…. China’s… looking for places where buying influence will yield results in the long term.” — Peter Wood, Daily Signal, August 15, 2023.

Joanna Williams The Censorship Bureaucracy Behind faceless policies on everything from emotional health to diversity, equity, and inclusion lies an impulse to control language—and thereby, thought.

https://media5.manhattan-institute.org/iiif/2/wp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F5%2FThe-Censorship-Bureaucracy.jpg/full/!99999,960/0/default.jpg

In a recurring sketch from a popular early 2000s U.K. comedy show called Little Britain, a bank clerk listens to customers’ queries, randomly types on a keyboard, and then deadpans the catchphrase: “computer says no.” Whatever the follow-up questions, no matter how angry or upset customers become, the response remains the same: “computer says no.” This skit lives on in Britons’ collective psyche mainly because it is funny, but also because it points to a familiar sentiment: the frustration of finding oneself stonewalled by an intransigent bureaucracy.

The sketch came to mind earlier this year when the Canadian Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) invited me to give its annual guest lecture. The venue was to be the public library in London, Ontario. I titled my talk “Sex, Gender, and the Limits of Free Speech on Campus” and looked forward to the occasion. Then, without any apparent sense of irony, the library cancelled my lecture with one emailed sentence: “As per the library’s policy governing room rentals, we are not able to approve the rental request.” Computer says no.

After much nudging, library staff revealed the specific policies I had unknowingly breached. My lecture was considered “likely to be in violation of library policy, including, but not limited to, the library’s rules of conduct, charter of library use or workplace harassment and sexual-harassment prevention policies.” More specifically, there was allegedly “a risk or likelihood of physical danger to participants or the audience or misuse of the property or equipment.” Finally, my speech might “negatively impact or impede the ability of others to enjoy the services and facilities of the library, and/or library operations.” Thankfully, SAFS managed to find an alternative venue, and my speech was recorded, so listeners can gauge for themselves whether I posed a risk of sexual harassment or physical danger.

Looking back at this event now, what strikes me most is the faceless, bureaucratic nature of censorship. No individual was bold enough to say: “I do not like what you have to say and I am going to prevent you from saying it.” Rather than taking responsibility for the decision to stop me from speaking —and, importantly, to prevent people from hearing what I had to say—library officials hid behind selected quotations from institutional policies. This cowardly approach gives bureaucrats plausible deniability when accused of censorship. Worse still, it allows them to appear almost apologetic: “We support free speech but, unfortunately, policy says no.”

Mark Levin’s The Democrat Party Hates America By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/mark_levins_emthe_democrat_party_hates_americaem.html

Once again, Mark Levin has done a great service to the Republic by writing a fully documented, highly pointed book on a topic of vital national interest. Published today by the Threshold Editions imprint of Simon & Schuster, The Democrat Party Hates America is required reading for anyone who follows politics in America. That most assuredly includes those who identify as Democrats, though most will shun the book because it is too much of a challenge to their sense of self-worth and virtue. For the few who have the courage to read it, the book will be a revelation. I make no secret that I was born into a family of active Democrats, and until reality intruded well into adulthood, I shared that political attachment. I have since regarded it as a mistaken affiliation, but after reading this book I now have a sense a shame.

If it is widely enough read, and I predict that it will be a runaway best-seller, the book will change the way the public understands one of our two major political parties, forever tainting the Democrats for the racism, hypocrisy, lack of principle, and sheer ruthless pursuit of power at any cost that have permeated their party throughout its history.  If you have family members, colleagues, associates, or friends who are vocal Democrats and who do not shy away from political discussions, The Democrat Party Hates America is a cornucopia of evidence that you can use to persuade them out of their delusion that they are supporting a worthwhile political movement.

Chapter One, “The Democrat Party and Authoritarianism,” introduces several themes that weave throughout the entire text. The Democrats seek, and via their dominance of the administrative state composed of career bureaucrats exercising powers that rightly belong to Congress and even the judiciary, to monopolize political power, and have succeeded to an alarming degree. Excellent use is made of a 2017 report by Freedom House, a nonpartisan NGO founded in 1941 that has historically focused on authoritarian governments overseas, including most recently China and Russia. Mark shows in detail how the most recent report on authoritarianism overseas also applies to the United States under Democrat administrations at the state and federal level.  

The Oslo Accords Began Israel’s Folly With the Palestinians Negotiating with PLO leader Arafat instead of other local leaders has led to intractable conflict. By Amir Avivi

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-oslo-accords-began-israels-folly-with-the-palestinians-plo-conflict-peace-terrorist-36661be1?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

Barbara W. Tuchman opens her iconic 1984 book, “The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam,” with Rehoboam, who caused the Kingdom of Israel to splinter into Judah and Israel. If Tuchman were writing today, she might have ended it with another wretched chapter from the history of Israel—the great folly of Oslo.

Tuchman defines folly as the pursuit by government of policies contrary to its own interests, whose adverse effects are apparent in real time, with the availability of feasible alternatives. The perpetrators are a group, not a single ruler, whose leadership spans longer than a generation. Israel’s implementation of the Oslo Accords, which were signed 30 years ago this month, meets all her criteria.

The folly of Oslo lies not in the creation of Palestinian autonomy (or as Yitzhak Rabin repeatedly called it, “less than a state”), which was part of the peace agreement Menachem Begin forged between Israel and Egypt. This idea was popular in Israel. But the decision to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization, a bloodthirsty terror organization devoted to the destruction of Israel, was an act of sheer folly. Viable alternatives existed, first and foremost local leaders in the Arab cities in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip.

In the days between the 1991 Gulf War and Oslo, PLO leader Yasser Arafat was a regional outcast because of his support for Saddam Hussein against the American-led Arab coalition. His prestige and the PLO’s suffered greatly. Yet Israel allowed Arafat to become a global player and even furnished him with weapons.

What About the Next American Hostages? After paying $6 billion to Iran, how will Biden prevent future ransom grabs?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-american-hostages-ransom-biden-administration-antony-blinken-f8473327?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The Biden Administration was out in force on Monday to celebrate the return home of seven American citizens from Iran, five of whom had been in prison. We can all be grateful for their freedom, but the question we wish U.S. policy markers would do more to address is how they will prevent the next hostage-taking by a rogue regime.

“To date, under this administration, we have now brought 30 Americans home from places around the world where they were being unjustly detained. That work will continue,” said Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

He added that, “At the same time, we’re going to be working every single day to take steps to make this practice more and more difficult and more and more of a burden on those countries that engage in it. And you’ll see in the days ahead here in New York, at the United Nations, our efforts to work with other countries to do just that.”

Let’s hope so, because there’s no doubt that paying $6 billion for seven Americans will encourage more such hostage-taking. Iran has paid no price for imprisoning Americans and has now been paid ransom for them. Iran snatched a couple of the Americans not long after the last hostage trade with the U.S. It’s part of Tehran’s business model, and it works.

It’s also insulting to read in that Washington Post that White House National Security Council official Brett McGurk says that “under terms that provide confidence, the funds will be spent only on a limited category of humanitarian trade: food, medicine and agricultural products. That’s it.”

He may be technically right about those specific funds. But that leaves the Tehran regime able to devote other funds they would have spent on those goods for such malevolent purposes as terrorism by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

EU Power Grab Free and fair elections? They are so 20th century. by Bruce Bawer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/eu-power-grab/

In case you missed it, September 13 was the big day – the occasion of the annual “State of the European Union” speech by European Commission President Ursula van der Leyen. Whether you voted for her or not – no, scratch that; unless you’re a member of the European Commission, which nominates its President, or the European Parliament, which chooses to ratify or reject the Commission’s selection, you can’t possibly ever have voted for her. Free and fair elections by the citizens of sovereign nations? Forget them! They’re so twentieth century. Don’t you realize that the European Union has moved far beyond such antiquated concepts, and is fast advancing toward a degree of international integration and power concentration – known in the EU lexicon as “democracy” – that it’ll make the likes of Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum pea-green with envy?

But before we get to van der Leyen’s speech – and to the not-to-be-missed response by Guy Verhofstadt – let’s go back briefly to the beginning. You know, of course, that the cause of European unity has a long and noble history. Napoleon did his best to bring it about in the early 1800s. A bit over a century later, Hitler gave it the old college try. After World War II, the Soviets would have had a go at it too, but the Western Allies were spoilsports. On the western side of the Iron Curtain, however, there quickly arose a postwar movement to unite Europeans under one government, whether Europeans themselves liked the idea or not. The name most intimately associated with this movement was Jean Monnet, a Frenchman from Chablis whose family business was the production of chablis and whose obsessive pursuit of European unity makes one wonder if he was guzzling too much chablis. To read about the life of this wine merchant, who became known as the “father of Europe,” is to learn about a career consisting of a long series of fancy-sounding jobs as international advisor, diplomat, and negotiator, of memberships on various blue-ribbon commissions, committees, and councils, and of the high-level hatching of various plans, projects, and programs. What you never come across is mention of an election. Because nobody ever voted for Monnet for anything.