Displaying the most recent of 89871 posts written by

Ruth King

Mayorkas Is Not the Right Target for Impeachment over the Border….That person is President Biden. Andrew McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/mayorkas-is-not-the-right-target-for-impeachment-over-the-border/

There is one official in the United States who has the undeniable statutory and constitutional authority to end the border catastrophe — for which that official is wholly responsible. That official is not Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. It is President Joe Biden. This is not to say Mayorkas is undeserving of the impeachment that House Republicans approved on Tuesday — only after losing a similar, party-line squeaker last week in a fit of incompetent vote-counting. But since this is merely a gesture — since there is not the slightest possibility that the Democrat-controlled Senate is going to convict and remove high-ranking Biden administration officials for carrying out Biden policy Democrats support — why not aim the gesture at the right target?

Like many of us, I’ve been ambivalent about the Mayorkas-impeachment gambit. Notwithstanding the ill-informed insistence of Representative Ken Buck (R., Colo.) in a National Review column this week, there’s no real doubt that the willful failure to secure the border is an impeachable offense, and that Mayorkas has willfully failed to secure the border, his main job. Nevertheless, in my 2014 book on impeachment, Faithless Execution, in discussing the debates that led to the congressional impeachment power that Madison regarded as “indispensable,” I made much — because the Framers had made much — of the interplay between impeachment and the constitutional concept of the unitary executive.

Western Farmers: Fork in the Road by Amir Taheri

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20398/western-farmers

Globalization rules enabled many nations to use their comparative advantage in terms of climate, richness of soil, less expensive labor and variety of products to claim a growing chunk of the traditional Western markets. At the same time, Western farmers had to cope with the growing cost of environmental measures concocted by the “save-the-planet” lobby.

The real world is divided into nation-states with frontiers, different cultures and legal systems, and resistance to the one-size-fits-all sought by ultra-globalists.

Protesting European farmers demand a “level-playing field”, something that, if regarded as a perfect model, does not and cannot exist in every human transaction. The “win-win” concept peddled by ultra-globalists is a myth. What matters is that the sum-total of relations among nation-states does not favor some and hurt others in the medium and long term.

Most polls show that most Europeans sympathize with their farmers. But will they continue doing so if the price is more expensive and less varied food and ditching part of the ecological dogma?

In the past few weeks European farmers have taken to the streets of their capitals to advertise a rebellious mood that few expected to see.

Having enjoyed a comfortable life for decades, thanks to subsidies from their respective governments and the European Union’s Common agricultural Policy (CAP), they were not expected to invade the grand capitals together with their sheep, cows and tractors with a litany of woes.

The question of food security was first raised after World War II as a top priority for Western European nations as they tried to rebuild their shattered economies.

The antisemitism crisis is out of control In both Britain and America, politics is becoming increasingly distorted Melanie Phillips

https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-antisemitism-crisis-is-out-of?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t06w&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The war in Gaza is prying open a potentially game-changing fissure in British politics that has wider implications for the western world.

Last weekend, a recording surfaced of a meeting of the Lancashire Labour Party in late October. It revealed that Azhar Ali, who was subsequently selected as the Labour Party candidate for a parliamentary by-election that will be held in Rochdale later this month, said Israel deliberately allowed the October 7 pogrom to occur in order to give itself “the green light” to invade Gaza.

Despite this blood libel, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who has pledged to rid the party of antisemitism, said he was satisfied that Ali had made a genuine apology for the statement.

Nearly two days later, after it emerged that Ali had also blamed people in the media “from certain Jewish quarters” for Labour’s suspension of one of its MPs for using the phrase “between the river and the sea,” Starmer stripped Ali of Labour support.

This was too late to stop Ali from standing in the by-election. Since Labour has withdrawn its endorsement, the party now has no candidate.

This chaos is potentially disastrous. Rochdale is 30 per cent Muslim. Also standing for election, as the candidate for the Respect party, is the demagogic, virulently anti-Israel George Galloway — who was himself expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 for opposing the “war on terror”. He is now well-placed to capitalise on the explosive Muslim hostility to Israel and win the seat.

Shortly after Ali was finally disowned, it was revealed that, at the same Lancashire meeting, Graham Jones — a former MP who is now a parliamentary candidate seeking to regain his former seat — repeatedly referred to “f***ing Israel”.

He also ranted that Britons who volunteer to fight for the Israel Defence Forces “should be locked up,” claiming falsely that such volunteering was illegal. Jones was suspended by the party, this time immediately.

State Department Threatens Congress Over Censorship Programs A year after its censorship programs were exposed, the Global Engagement Center still insists the public has no right to know how it’s spending taxpayer money Matt Taibbi

https://www.racket.news/p/state-department-threatens-congress?

The State Department is so unhappy a newspaper published details about where it’s been spending your taxes, it’s threatened to only show a congressional committee its records in camera until it gets a “better understanding of how the Committee will utilize this sensitive information.” Essentially, Tony Blinken is threatening to take his transparency ball home unless details about what censorship programs he’s sponsoring stop appearing in papers like the Washington Examiner:

The State Department tells Congress, which controls its funding, that it will only disclose where it spent our money “in camera”

A year ago the Examiner published “Disinformation, Inc.”, a series by investigative reporter Gabe Kaminsky describing how the State Department was backing a UK-based agency that creates digital blacklists for disfavored media outlets. Your taxes helped fund the Global Disinformation Index, or GDI, which proudly touts among its services an Orwellian horror called the Dynamic Exclusion List, a digital time-out corner where at least 2,000 websites were put on blast as unsuitable for advertising, “thus disrupting the ad-funded disinformation business model.”

Many Reporters Paid for Covering the Russiagate Story Matt Tiabbi

https://www.racket.news/p/many-reporters-paid-for-covering?

Three years ago, on February 25th, 2021, Aaron Maté at RealClearInvestigations ran “In Final Days, Trump Gave Up on Forcing Release of Russiagate Files, Nunes Prober Says.” Extensively quoting former Principal Deputy to the Acting Director of National Intelligence Kash Patel, Aaron wrote a section on “Assessing the ‘Intelligence Community Assessment,’” detailing a lot of the same story Michael Shellenberger, Alexandra Gutentag and I ran in Public and Racket Thursday. Describing a 2018 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report on the subject, Aaron wrote:

The March 2018 House report found that the production of the ICA “deviated from established CIA practice.” And the core judgment that Putin sought to help Trump, the House report found, resulted from “significant intelligence tradecraft failings that undermine confidence in the ICA judgments.”

Many of us who followed this story — a number of reporters on both sides of the aisle did so obsessively — have long had a good idea about the general direction of that House investigation. The tale of improper CIA and FBI surveillance mixed with manufactured intelligence has been in the ether since late 2017 and early 2018.

I’ll list just a few of the names who reported stories in this direction over the years, in some cases day after day on broadcast shows.

An attentive reader will notice nearly everyone on the list has been denounced at some point by the mainstream commentators who got this story horribly wrong. Aaron, considered a traitor by former mainstream colleagues, faced pressure from staff at The Nation, was denounced by The Guardian as part of a “network of conspiracy theorists,” and failed to gain support from any major media outlet or press advocacy organization when the FBI passed on an outrageous request from Ukrainian secret services to remove him from Twitter.

Michael Shellenberger: Obama Partisan Wrote False 2017 Russia Intelligence Assessment, Says Insider House Intelligence report that debunked the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference was written by “introverted, wonky, and nerdy professionals” not “political hacks”

https://public.substack.com/p/obama-partisan-wrote-false-2017-russia

Around 10 a.m. on a Saturday in August 2018, someone made the extraordinary decision to show a White House staff member a top-secret report written by investigators working for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), which is universally pronounced as “hip C.”

The still-secret, never-released HPSCI report concluded that the Russian government wanted Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, to win the 2016 election and that then-CIA Director John Brennan had manipulated a January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” or ICA, which had come to the opposite conclusion.

“There was the top-secret version I was shown,” said the man, who came forward after reading yesterday’s report by Public and Racket. “There was an even more highly classified version that I was not shown, which had more details.”

The HPSCI offices are located in a large complex underneath the capitol visitor’s center. “It was built after 9/11,” he explained. “It’s a huge underground facility that the public never sees. The whole office is a SCIF.”

A SCIF is a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility and is pronounced “skiff.”

The former White House staffer did not want to say who brought him into the HPSCI SCIF to read the report. They did so secretly. There is no record of him reading the report.

“About one-quarter of HPSCI staff are former intelligence officers,” he said.

Elite Colleges Reconsidering SAT Score Requirements By Eric Lendrum

https://amgreatness.com/2024/02/16/elite-colleges-reconsidering-sat-score-requirements/

Several elite universities are considering reversing recent decisions to reduce or even eliminate requirements for application that include standardized test scores such as the SAT exams.

According to Axios, multiple colleges used the Chinese Coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to weaken the importance of SAT and ACT test scores in most student applications. But in recent weeks, several schools have reversed course; Yale is considering repealing its prior policy of making SAT/ACT requirements optional, with Dartmouth already reinstating the requirements earlier this month. MIT reversed a similar policy back in 2022.

Other schools that have eliminated SAT/ACT requirements include Harvard and Columbia. Harvard, along with Cornell and Princeton, have extended their policy of making the scores optional, while Columbia’s policy remains permanent.

One of the motivating factors behind the reversal is ongoing research showing a clear correlation between students’ standardized test scores, and their subsequent academic performance and graduation rates in college. Some schools had previously opposed the test requirements for reasons of “diversity,” baselessly accusing the tests of being “racist” and against minority students.

Dartmouth pointed to a study that had been commissioned by the university’s president, which “confirms that standardized testing — when assessed using the local norms at a student’s high school” is crucial in evaluating an applicant’s potential.

In a statement, Yale’s undergraduate office said that they “expect to announce a decision on its long-term testing policy in the next few weeks.” In the meantime, students applying for the Fall of 2024 will still fall under the “not optional” category when it comes to standardized tests.

Brown University is currently awaiting a committee’s recommendations on how to move forward with standardized testing, as well as other practices such as legacy admissions and early decisions. The committee is expected to finish its report in the next few months.

There are still over 2,000 schools in the country which remain either optional or completely free of standardized test requirements ahead of the 2024-2025 academic year. Meanwhile, the National Education Association (NEA) has demanded that all colleges eliminate testing requirements, with NEA president Becky Pringle declaring in a statement that “All students deserve and have the ability to demonstrate knowledge in many ways that are measurable by those who know them best: Their educators.”

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents Progressives move to block TV ads opposing the Biden EV mandate.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-electric-vehicle-mandate-american-fuel-and-petrochemical-manufacturers-ads-fcc-climate-power-578876e5?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

If President Biden’s electric-vehicle mandate is as popular as progressives claim, why are they trying to censor critics who want to inform the public about the mandate’s costs?

That’s the story this week, after the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) launched ads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio and Montana to educate Americans about the Administration’s back-door EV mandate. Mr. Biden is “rushing to ban new gas-powered cars” and wants “to force you into an electric vehicle,” one ad says.

The Biden team doth protest. “There is no EV mandate,” a Biden campaign official declared. No? The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards that would effectively require that EVs make up two-thirds of auto maker sales by 2032. The standards will “accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,” EPA said.

EPA’s proposed emissions rules are so stringent that auto makers will be able to comply only by producing an increasing number of “zero-emission vehicles” or by buying regulatory credits from EV manufacturers like Tesla.

. Americans shopping for a new car will have no choice but to buy an EV or pay a fortune for the few gas-powered cars still available.

Yet Mr. Biden and his allies don’t want voters to know that banning gas-powered cars is their end game. That’s why the progressive umbrella group Climate Power on Tuesday shot off a missive to broadcasters demanding that they pull the AFPM ads—or else. These “advertisements include obvious lies aimed at deceiving the public and must be pulled from the air immediately,” Climate Power chief operating officer Jill Shesol wrote. But who’s actually trying to deceive the public?

Trump’s $355 Million Civil Fraud Verdict The judge found he inflated his assets, but this penalty is unreal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-355-million-civil-fraud-verdict-arthur-engoron-trump-organization-dde7e87b?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

“More troubling is that this case was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned for office promising to find Mr. Trump guilty of something. This is choosing a target and then hunting for something to charge him with, which is an abuse of the law. Mr. Trump isn’t guaranteed a jury trial here, the judge says, because of the kind of case it is. But that’s another reason voters are unlikely to hold this judgment against Mr. Trump as he campaigns for the White House.”

Mr. Trump denounced the verdict and says he’ll appeal. Meantime, this example of targeted civil prosecution ought to worry fair-minded people regardless of political bent. CEOs might wonder about doing business in a jurisdiction where elected politicians use the law to smash companies this way.

Donald Trump and his business were found liable Friday of inflating asset values in paperwork to lenders, but given that nobody lost money, this punishment smacks of political overkill. In a 92-page ruling, New York Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him to pay $355 million, while also banning him from being an officer for any New York corporation for three years.

The judge had previously found that Mr. Trump fudged numbers submitted on Statements of Financial Condition (SFCs), most egregiously by claiming that his 11,000-square-foot triplex in Trump Tower was actually 30,000 square feet. Friday’s ruling, putting a price tag on that conduct, includes pages of summarized testimony from business partners.

Let Terror Victims Sue Unrwa Congress gave international organizations immunity from civil liability. It’s time to establish an exception. Eugene Kontorovich

https://www.wsj.com/articles/let-terror-victims-sue-unwra-congress-make-exception-to-immunity-from-civil-liability-37b2667e?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

Imagine the consequences if an American municipal government were found to have allowed a known terror group to build a major base under City Hall. What if employees of a local public library had provided terrorists with supplies or joined in a campaign of murder, torture and hostage-taking? At the very least, everyone involved would be accountable for large damages to the victims in civil suits. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or Unrwa, has done exactly these things in Gaza. Yet no one in Turtle Bay is worried about being hauled into court.

The U.N. and its subsidiaries, as well as an alphabet soup of international organizations, enjoy absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in the U.S.—even for intentional crimes committed under their authority. Congress conferred this immunity in 1945 by passing the International Organizations Immunities Act. The U.N. and similar organizations were supposed to act for the benefit of humanity, and immunity would give them independence and protect them from harassing lawsuits.

Immunity for international organizations is modeled on sovereign immunity, one of the bedrock principles of international law, which bars countries from allowing their courts to hear damages suits against other countries. Yet even with sovereign immunity, Congress established that if other states support or promote the murder or abuse of Americans, the victims or their families should be allowed to recover damages. In the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1979 (FSIA), Congress stripped states of their immunity for murder, torture and hostage-taking of American citizens, provided that the president designates the country as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Countries like Iran and North Korea are currently on the list.