Displaying posts published in

September 2018

Christopher Steele: International Man of Mystery By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/06/christopher-steele

Who exactly is Christopher Steele? The answer depends on who you ask.

According to our media overlords, he is simply a former British spy, well-regarded by the international intelligence apparatus for his skill and deep connections, and someone whose “integrity, excellence and diligence” should not be questioned. Reporters portray him as an honest broker who tried to warn U.S. law enforcement officials about the Trump campaign’s ties to the Kremlin via his infamous dossier. Steele, we are warned, now is a victim of congressional Republicans desperate to undermine the special counsel’s investigation.

But as the real story emerges about who Christopher Steele is, it raises troubling questions about his influence in the 2016 presidential campaign and in the highest echelons of the U.S. government.

Who Really Colluded with the Russians?
During the 2016 election cycle, Steele was paid by three conflicting sources: The Hillary Clinton campaign; the FBI; and a Russian oligarch tied to Vladimir Putin. This confluence of fiduciary events is the closest evidence yet about legitimate collusion between a presidential campaign and Russian interests, aided by Steele’s pals in the U.S. Department of Justice and helpful reporters in the American news media.

ELECTIONS ARE COMING-NAOMI LEVIN TAKES ON THE DEMOCRAT CARTEL IN NEW YORK

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/naomi_levin_takes_on_the_ny_democratic_cartel.html
Naomi Levin takes on the NY Democratic cartelBy Seth Ian

Entrenched Democrat establishment career politician Jerrold Nadler may have met his match in Naomi Levin. Her campaign website sums it up well: “growing up she was keenly aware that entitlement is not an American value hard work is.” Running as a Republican in the Tenth Congressional District, she seems the perfect foil to Congressman Nadler, a man who supported Obama’s disastrous Iran deal and has made resisting the duly elected President Trump his chief goal.

Levin, the daughter of immigrants from the former USSR, has been interviewed on Fox and Friends. In that interview she contrasts her capitalist views with another NY millennial turned politician. Unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Naomi does not believe in socialism but rather believes in making America great and that it doesn’t need what Obama referred to as a fundamental transformation. Instead, Naomi appreciates this country and wants to cut taxes, which in NY are extremely high.

Naomi Levin is the perfect foil for her opponent. She wants to go to Washington “to influence a system overhaul.” Contrast that with Nadler, a pillar of the Washington establishment since 1993. Her opponent represents the epitome of an establishment which is seeing its political clout fading. Unlike Nadler and the open borders Democrat NY establishment, Naomi Levin supports law enforcement and believes in enforcing immigration law, saying “We also need to control who can cross our border and support our efforts to do that.”

Are Feminists Aiding Muslim Domination? By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/are_feminists_aiding_muslim_domination.html

“What do you think about … creating an awesome festival where only non-men are welcome until ALL men learn how to behave?” This comes from the article titled “Women Cheer as Sweden’s Man-Free Music Festival Kicks Off.” Initiated as a response to the wave of sexual assaults at Swedish festivals in recent years, only female bands are performing, and “neither male security guards nor journalists are allowed to enter.” However, “transgender women [sic] born as men are allowed to attend. Only men who identify with the sex they were born with, also called cis men, are banned.”

Such a radical view balkanizes and scapegoats men while applauding transgender behavior.

In fact, the misandry has led the Swedish Equality Ombudsman, a government agency that promotes equal rights, to “examine whether the festival is compatible with discrimination laws.”

It appears that the left-wing feminist movement has become the perpetrator of man-hatred, all in the name of protecting women. Yet overlooked by the advocates of the man-free festival is that it was a plethora of Muslim migrants who perpetrated the dreadful assaults and rapes. These migrants come from societies where this is considered an acceptable way to treat women. In fact, “no issue is taken with toxic Islamic masculinity. This thinly-veiled excuse-making may be considered an attempt at dispelling anti-Islamic bigotry. Yet, holding woefully low standards for men based on their background is an equally poor form of bigotry.”

Thus, the elephant in the room is being deliberately ignored. Accusations of bigotry must be avoided at all costs. It is easier to inflict collective blame than to deal with the actual guilty parties.

By scapegoating all men, ignored is the fact that Sweden is not providing the proper security to protect its women from sexual assaults. At the same time, the country is spending vast sums of money to support more migrants from the Muslim world. They bring their culture and religion to bear, and it is decidedly anti-female.

No one in authority dares question why there has been an increase in sexual assaults. No one dares wonder why the Islamic world does nothing to assist its own brethren while the West is expected to pick up the tab.

Environmentalists Need to Get Real The problem isn’t climate-change denial. It’s doubt that activists have the answers.By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/environmentalists-need-to-get-real-1536010580

“Many environmentalists fail to grasp that the real problem isn’t skepticism that the climate is changing, or even that human activity is a leading cause of the change. Millions worry about climate change and believe human activity is in large part responsible. But they do not believe that the climate movement has the answers for the problems it describes. Green policy blunders, like support for ethanol in the U.S. and knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power, erode confidence that environmental activists—who too often have an anticapitalist, Malthusian and technophobic view of the world—can be trusted, to as they often say, to “save the planet.”

Last week French environmental minister Nicolas Hulot, once a prominent supporter of President Emmanuel Macron, threw in the towel. “I don’t want to lie anymore. I don’t want to create the illusion that my presence in the government means that we are on top of [environmental] issues,” he said during a live broadcast announcing his resignation.

Mr. Hulot is not alone among environmentalists in denouncing the hypocrisy and inadequacy of government action on climate change. The Paris accords are “a fraud, really, a fake,” said climate activist James Hansen in 2015. “There is no action, just promises.”

Three years later, Mr. Hansen’s words look prescient. Even ostensibly committed countries like Germany and France are on course to miss the voluntary 2020 targets they announced to such fanfare in 2015. The Climate Action Tracker estimates that only Morocco and Gambia are on a “Paris agreement compatible” path.

The climate-change movement is stuck, even after a scorching summer elevated the issue across much of the Northern Hemisphere. It is powerful enough to command lip service from politicians, but too weak to impose the policies it says are needed to prevent catastrophic change.

British Jews Have Reason to Fear Corbyn’s Labour Party The opposition leader has called Hamas terrorists ‘brothers’ and disparaged even domestic ‘Zionists.’ By Dovid Efune

https://www.wsj.com/articles/british-jews-have-reason-to-fear-corbyns

Lord Jonathan Sacks isn’t known to throw around accusations. So when the Commonwealth’s former chief rabbi weighed in on Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, people took notice.

Rabbi Sacks last week described Mr. Corbyn as “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate.” He called one Corbyn comment “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech,” a vicious anti-immigration diatribe. Rabbi Sacks was referring to Mr. Corbyn’s 2013 description of British “Zionists”: “They don’t want to study history and . . . they don’t understand English irony either.” On Sunday Rabbi Sacks doubled down, telling the BBC that the prospect of Mr. Corbyn as prime minister was a “danger” to British Jewry.

In July, 68 leading U.K. rabbis had written an open letter to the Guardian accusing Labour’s leadership of ignoring the Jewish community and the “severe and widespread” anti-Semitism plaguing the party. Shortly after, in an unprecedented move, the country’s three leading Jewish newspapers published joint cover stories describing the potential of a Corbyn-led government as an “existential threat to Jewish life” in Britain.

Some members of Mr. Corbyn’s own party have been unforgiving. A day after Rabbi Sacks’s remarks were published, Labour veteran Frank Field resigned from the party’s group in Parliament over the issue. Another senior party member, Dame Margaret Hodge, furiously confronted Mr. Corbyn in July and called him a “racist and anti-Semite.” Dozens of other party leaders have expressed outrage over the matter.

But Mr. Corbyn and his acolytes are having none of it—and have engaged in concerted efforts to undermine their critics.

A Labour spokesman called Rabbi Sacks’s comments “absurd and offensive.” The party briefly put Ms. Hodge under investigation. Labourites who participated in a March protest over anti-Semitism were accused of attempting to smear the party leader and were threatened with dismissal from the party via a process known as “deselection.” A letter endorsed by thousands of Corbyn supporters alleged that the gathering was the work of a “very powerful special interest group.” For his part, Mr. Corbyn claimed in an interview: “I’m not an anti-Semite in any way, never have been, never will be.” CONTINUE AT SITE

U.K. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn Faces Pressure on Anti-Semitism Accusations Party leaders to meet this week to consider revising code of conduct on anti-Jewish speech and acts By Jason Douglas

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-faces-pressure-on-anti-semitism-accusations-1535904000?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=undefined&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

LONDON—Tony Flacks joined the British Labour Party in the early 1980s, seeing the center-left group as the natural political home for a high-school teacher working in a rundown North London district blighted by racism and discrimination.

He quit after more than three decades of membership in 2016, angry and fed up at what he perceived as the party’s reluctance to root out an ancient prejudice that he, a British Jew, saw flowering anew within its ranks: anti-Semitism. This year, for the same reason, his 29-year-old daughter followed suit.

Century-old ties between Britain’s Jewish community and the Labour Party are fraying as the U.K.’s main opposition party and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, struggle to deal with a crescendo of accusations of anti-Jewish bias.

Some lawmakers fear the controversy is denting Labour’s electoral appeal by overshadowing its attacks on Prime Minister Theresa May’s government over Brexit, housing and other policies voters say they care about.

Officials of the Labour Party, whose governing committee is meeting next week in an attempt to quell the issue, say the party deplores all forms of discrimination. They have pledged tougher penalties for any Labour members engaging in anti-Semitic speech or acts, and Mr. Corbyn has ordered up a program to educate members about anti-Semitism. The Labour leader, who has faced—and denied—several specific allegations of anti-Jewish bias himself, has told British Jews he is their ally in combating hate.Yet the party’s efforts to persuade its supporters and critics that it is tackling the problem have repeatedly fallen flat, and some supporters of the Labour leader have pushed back against the issue. Earlier this year, pollster YouGov PLC found that over 70% of the more than 1,000 Labour members it polled thought accusations of anti-Semitism were being exaggerated in a bid to undermine Mr. Corbyn’s leadership or muffle criticism of Israel.

A Swedish Shake-Up Sunday’s vote could be the next in Europe to boost the far right.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-swedish-shake-up-1536191274

Now it may be Sweden’s turn. Voters head to the polls for a national election on Sunday, and as in nearly every other recent European election the polls suggest that Swedes are set to rebel against mainstream parties, especially on immigration.

As usual in Swedish elections, the top vote-getter is expected to be the center-left Social Democrats of Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. But polls currently peg the party’s support at about 25%, down from the roughly 30% in recent elections. The bigger race is for second place, between the mainstream center-right Moderate party and the heretofore fringe Sweden Democrats. Both currently enjoy between 15% and 20% support in the polls.

This means the Sweden Democrats are peeling voters away from both mainstream parties and are on track for their best-ever result. Sweden’s complicated parliamentary-seat math may still allow the Moderates to form a ruling coalition, but it would be a weak government, and the fringe party could play spoiler on specific legislation.

In a now familiar European story, the top three issues have been migration, migration and migration. Sweden welcomed more than its fair share of Middle Eastern migrants in 2015, with a ratio of migrants to locals even greater than in Germany. But voters quickly had second thoughts, and in late 2015 Mr. Löfven’s government tried to shut the door by imposing new border checks to block migrant entries.

Blame Congress for Politicizing the Court When lawmakers hand power to bureaucrats, the people expect judges to act as superlegislators. By Ben Sasse

https://www.wsj.com/articles/blame-congress-for-politicizing-the-court-1536189015
Mr. Sasse, a Nebraska Republican, is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is adapted from his opening statement at Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water. He’s been declared an existential threat to the nation. Alumni of Yale Law School, incensed that faculty members at his alma mater praised his selection, wrote a public letter to the school saying: “People will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.”

It’s predictable now that every Supreme Court confirmation hearing will be a politicized circus. This is because Americans have accepted a bad new theory about how the three branches of government should work—and in particular about how the judiciary operates.

In the U.S. system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of politics. Why isn’t it? For the past century, more legislative authority has been delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is weak, and most people here in Congress want their jobs more than they want to do legislative work. So they punt most of the work to the next branch.

The consequence of this transfer of power is that people yearn for a place where politics can actually be done. When we don’t do a lot of big political debating here in Congress, we transfer it to the Supreme Court. And that’s why the court is increasingly a substitute political battleground. We badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power to our constitutional system.

If there are lots of protests in front of the Supreme Court, that’s an indication that the republic isn’t healthy. People should be protesting in front of this body instead. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy—because making laws means we have to hash out matters about which we don’t all agree.

How did the legislature decide to give away its power? We’ve been doing it for a long time. Over the course of the past century, especially since the 1930s and ramping up since the 1960s, the legislative branch has kicked a lot of its responsibility to alphabet-soup bureaucracies. These are the places where most actual policy-making—in a way, lawmaking—happens now.

What we mostly do around this body is not pass laws but give permission to bureaucracy X, Y or Z to make lawlike regulations. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven’t read, filled with terms that are undefined, and we say the secretary or administrator of such-and-such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our jobs. That’s why there are so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary—because Congress rarely finishes its work. CONTINUE AT SITE

Ben Sasse’s ‘Tell It Like It Is’ Moment at Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing By Chris Queen

https://pjmedia.com/trending/ben-sasses-tell-it-like-it-is-moment/

The Nebraska senator’s statement may wind up being the most blistering moment of the hearings.

As the hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court generated a partisan circus — complete with protesters in Handmaid’s Tale garb — one man stood above the fray to deliver a splash of cold water to the face of Congress. That man was Ben Sasse.

Senator Sasse (R-Neb.) made one of the most impassioned statements of his career on Tuesday. In ten minutes, he held forth on what is wrong with the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process.

The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips broke Sasse’s speech down into four bullet points:

1. Congress is set up to be the most po­lit­i­cal branch. “This is sup­posed to be the in­sti­tu­tion dedi­cat­ed to po­lit­i­cal fights,” Sasse said.

2.But in the name of politics, lawmakers have de­cid­ed to keep their jobs rath­er than take tough votes. “Most people here want their jobs more than they re­al­ly want to do legis­la­tive work, and so they punt their legis­la­tive work to the next branch,” Sasse said.

3. Be­cause Congress of­ten lets the ex­ec­u­tive branch write rules, and Americans aren’t sure who in the gov­ern­ment bureauc­ra­cy to talk to, that leaves Americans with no oth­er place than the courts to turn to ex­press their frus­tra­tion with poli­cies. And the Su­preme Court, with its nine vis­i­ble mem­bers, is a con­veni­ent out­let. Sasse: “This trans­fer of pow­er means people yearn for a place where politics can be done, and when we don’t do a lot of big po­lit­i­cal debate here, people trans­fer it to the Su­preme Court. And that’s why the Su­preme Court is in­creas­ing­ly a sub­sti­tute po­lit­i­cal battle­ground for America.”

4. Sasse’s final point is one you can prob­a­bly guess is com­ing by now: That this proc­ess needs to change. If Congress did more legis­lat­ing, these Su­preme Court nom­i­na­tion bat­tles would get less po­lit­i­cal, he ar­gues: “If we see lots and lots of pro­tests in front of the Su­preme Court, that’s a pret­ty good ba­rom­e­ter of the fact that our re­pub­lic isn’t heal­thy. They shouldn’t be pro­test­ing in front of the Su­preme Court, they should be pro­test­ing in front of this body.”

Clearly, in the senator’s eyes, Congress isn’t doing what the public has elected them to do, and this failure of the body to do its job has led directly to the divided, heated hearings we see every time a potential Supreme Court justice is up for confirmation these days. CONTINUE AT SITE

Capitol Police Arrested 143 Protesters in the First Two Days of the Kavanaugh Hearings By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/trending/capitol-police-arrested-143-protesters-in-the-first-two-days-of-the-kavanaugh-hearings/

From the very first moments of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats and protesters interrupted and shouted down the proceedings. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) likened the situation to “mob rule,” and the Capitol Police reported that in the first two days, they have arrested 143 protesters.

“The United States Capitol Police responded to numerous incidents of unlawful demonstration activities within the Senate Office Buildings that were associated with today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing,” the police said in a statement on Wednesday evening.

“Sixty-six individuals were removed from the Committee room in the Hart Senate Office Building, and were charged with D.C. Code §22–1321 – Disorderly conduct,” the statement reported. “In addition, six individuals were removed from the fourth floor of the Russell Senate Office Building for unlawful demonstration activities and were charged with D.C. Code §22-1307 – Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding.”

Finally, one person “was arrested in the Hart Atrium and was charged with D.C. Code §22-1307 – Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding, and D.C. Code §22-405.01 – Resisting Arrest.”

These 73 protesters joined the 70 arrested on Tuesday. The Capitol Police reported removing 61 people on the first day of the hearings, and charging them with disorderly conduct. They also removed nine more protesters from the second floor of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for unlawful demonstration.

The hearings are ongoing, with no sign that the protests will stop.

As Law & Crime’s Ron Blitzer reported, three medical doctors have claimed that the protesters are being paid to stand up in the middle of the hearings and start shouting, only to be escorted out and charged by police.

Adam Schindler, president of Schindler Digital, tweeted two photos: one showing a woman getting paid while in line to enter the hearing, and another showing the same woman escorted out of the hearing.

Schindler presented the photos as “proof the protesters were paid off in line.” CONTINUE AT SITE