Displaying posts published in

November 2018

Europe’s Migrant Disaster Should Teach America a Lesson Even Hillary Clinton now admits the Continent erred in allowing entry of too many unvetted ‘refugees.’ By Jason L. Riley

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-migrant-disaster-should-teach-america-a-lesson-1543362209

Political up-and-comers like New York’s Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might feel comfortable comparing Central American migrants to Jewish families fleeing Nazi Germany, as she did in a tweet the other day. But some elder statesmen in her party seem to know better.

Take Hillary Clinton, who surprised a lot of people last week when she told a British newspaper that “Europe needs to get a handle on migration.” She said the Continent’s leaders should make clear that they are “not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support” to any and all who want to come. Border chaos fuels anti-immigrant populism, be it in the U.S. or Europe—and she should know. During the 2016 campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s focus was making the Mexico border more open rather than more secure, and she believes that’s one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected president.

Delivering the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture in South Africa in July, Barack Obama went further. “It’s not wrong to insist that national borders matter, [that] whether you’re a citizen or not is going to matter to a government, that laws need to be followed,” he said. Newcomers, Mr. Obama added, “should make an effort to adapt to the language and customs of their new home. Those are legitimate things, and we have to be able to engage people who do feel as if things are not orderly.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Endangered Species Habitat Check The Supreme Court rules 8-0 against a federal land grab for the dusky gopher frog.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/endangered-species-habitat-check-1543365316

Amid all the hand-wringing about a polarized Supreme Court, note Tuesday’s unanimous decision for regulatory sanity. The case concerned whether a frog’s “critical habitat” can include land where the frog doesn’t live and can’t survive.

Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife involves more than 1,500 acres in Louisiana that the government declared “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act. Two problems: The critter hasn’t been seen in those parts for about five decades, and it can’t survive on the land without clearing forest canopy.

The timber company that operates on the land sued on the sensible grounds that the place can’t be critical habitat if the creature would die on arrival. The law allows Fish and Wildlife to designate certain unoccupied areas as critical habit but only if they’re essential to the conservation of the species. The designation threatens development on the land and could cost the owners $34 million by the government’s estimates.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the government in a decision with no limiting principle—by the circuit’s logic, a desert could be critical habitat for a fish, as more than a dozen state attorneys general pointed out in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump is right: we can choose either Europe or the US, but not both Jeremy Warner

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/27/donald-trump-right-can-choose-either-europe-us-not/

Ever since Theresa May’s ill-fated decision to call an election and the consequent loss of her majority, very little has gone right for Britain’s beleaguered prime minister. Having finally got Brussels to agree some sort of a withdrawal deal, it now seems overwhelmingly likely that her own parliament will brutally vote it down.

As is often the way with middle course strategies, her deal has ended up offending almost everyone. The country, and parliament, are too divided, too entrenched and immovable in their views, to allow for compromise. Remorselessly, apparently irredeemably, we are drifting towards the mother of all political crises, perhaps the biggest of many of our lifetimes. May’s only hope is that Brussels comes to her rescue, and offers sufficient in the way of concessions – say allowing the UK unilaterally to withdraw from the customs backstop – to get her over the line. But it is an increasingly forlorn prospect.

As if things were not bad enough, along comes Donald Trump to deliver, as is his way, the final coup de grâce, insisting in effect that Mrs May’s deal would be incompatible with a meaningful US free trade agreement. Since free trade deals with other parts of the world were meant to be the big economic dividend from Brexit, this is something of a blow.

But it was also only a statement of the bleedin’ obvious; the closer you are to one trading bloc, the less easy it is to strike a deal with another, and that’s precisely the dilemma that Mrs May’s deal has highlighted. By trying to stay close to Europe, she makes it very hard to be close to America at the same time.

Trade was always as much about geopolitical power and heft as the Ricardo-esque textbook ideal of mutually beneficial commercial interaction and progress. We’d like it to be the latter; but the way of the world is the former. Mr Trump has laid this harsh reality bare, demolishing some of the wilder fantasies about “Global Britain”, free to trade as it likes with the rest of the world once released from its European shackles. What Trump is saying is that you can have a deep and meaningful trading relationship with either the US or Europe, but not both; it’s us or them.

What California’s Fire Follies Can Teach Us Roger Underwood

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/what-californias-fire-follies-can-teach-us/

As is normal these days, the blame game is already being waged in the wake of the most recent 2018 Californian bushfires. On the one hand are the doomsayers who claim the fires are a result of climate change. At the other end of the spectrum are those blaming “environmental terrorists” for preventing effective pre-fire management, such as forest thinning and fuel-reduction burning.

Depressingly, the climate changers include influential Australians such as Stuart Ellis, CEO of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authority, and Richard Thornton, director of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre. Both are quoted in The Guardian newspaper attributing the Californian fires to climate change, with no qualification. Fascinatingly, the second group includes Ryan Zinke, the US Secretary of the Interior, and Sonny Perdue, US Secretary of Agriculture, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service. Zinke makes no bones about his view that responsible preparation of potential fire grounds was prevented by environmental zealots, whom he brands “terrorists”.

As in most matters where science, politics and human affairs intermix, the reality is more complex than either of these contrasting opinions. As happens so often in the media these days, the single-issue commentators are not addressing the fire problem but are using alarm over the fires to promote another agenda. For example, Australian bushfire research and emergency response agencies promote climate change anxiety to generate increased funding; the Trump administration wants to revive logging for economic and social reasons, and cites overstocked, dying forests (locked away by ‘green’ administrations) as the fundamental cause of the fires.

I am not an expert on the Californian situation, but I have been there many times and have many colleagues in the American fire community who have helped to educate me and shape my views. What follows is my perspective on what is going on, and what is likely to transpire. I am trying to look at the bigger picture, rather than focus on one issue or another.

For a start, California is a big place with a wide range of climates, vegetation and topographical situations and therefore a range of different bushfire challenges. Irrespective of any recent “climate change”, most of California has always experienced hot, dry summers and cool wet winters, and droughts have always periodically occurred. There is also (usually in late summer) the scourge of the infamous Santa Ana winds. These are hot, dry, strong winds originating in the desert country to the east that sweep down the Sierra Mountains into coastal southern California. This air mass is so dry, it acts on a bushfire like opening the door of a blast furnace. Furthermore, wind velocity often peaks between midnight and dawn, ensuring people in the path of a newly-started fire receive little warning and awake to be confronted by wind-driven flames.

Pushing and Shoving in the South China Sea Tom Lewis

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/11/pushing-shoving-south-china-sea/

Warships pushing and shoving in the South China Sea might be nothing to worry about in the short term, but what implications do such incidents have for the area, including countries further abroad such as Australia?

Aggressive naval manoeuvring between the warships of nations who don’t like each other is nothing new. A standard tactic is to deliberately plot a collision course, and then, if you’re the aggressor, change speed or course by a few knots or degrees and just miss your opponent. Crossing his bow then dumping garbage over the stern of your ship so he has to steam through it is another one.

These doings might seem silly but they have a method in their madness. Forcing your opponent to back down is pushing him onto the back foot, as boxers say. Warfare is won by aggression, something warriors learn in the Principles of War. And being a successful aggressor heightens morale on your side, another imperative if you want to win.

The recent shoving between the US destroyer Decatur and the Chinese Luyang-class destroyer Lanzhou was not nearly as fraught as it might have been. These manoeuvres can quickly escalate—if both nations want them to—to fire-control radars “lighting up” their target; missiles and guns being trained towards the potential enemy, and in the more physical sense, one vessel refusing to back down from contact. Having your ship “T-boned” might involve costly damage, injuries, even loss of life, but it shows your ship, and by implication your nation, is not in a mood to back down.

It needs to be understood, though, that such aggressive manoeuvring is almost always done with the full knowledge of the senior command of the navies involved, and from there the political structure above them.

Evaluating Paul Manafort’s Alleged Violation of His Plea Agreement By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/evaluating-paul-manaforts-alleged-violation-of-his-plea-agreement/

Keep your eye on the pardon dynamic.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has informed a federal court that Paul Manafort violated his plea agreement by repeatedly lying to investigators. Prosecutors thus consider the agreement null and void and have asked the court to set a sentencing date immediately.

The alleged breach was outlined in a brief submission to district judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, and reported by the New York Times Monday evening. The submission by Andrew Weissmann and other lawyers on Mueller’s team does not describe Manafort’s allegedly false statements, other than to say that they involve “a variety of subject matters.” Prosecutors are planning to file a sentencing memorandum “that sets forth the nature of the defendant’s crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement.”

In the submission, prosecutors acknowledge that Manafort “believes he has provided truthful information and does not agree with the government’s characterization or that he has breached the agreement.”

On the surface, it doesn’t seem that Manafort’s dispute can get him very far. But when we look closer, we realize that this is about more than a plea; it is about a pardon.

When it comes to claimed breaches of a plea agreement, the prosecutor holds the dominant position. Defendants who plead guilty and agree to cooperate, as Manafort did on the day before his Washington trial was to begin, do so with the understanding that the value of the cooperation is the prosecutor’s call. If the prosecutor decides the information provided is not useful — or, worse, that the defendant has lied — the defendant does not get to withdraw his guilty plea. Further, if the prosecutor decides the defendant has breached the agreement, the government is under no obligation to support reductions in sentence that the defendant hoped to achieve by entering the agreement.

‘I am Israel’s best friend,’ Czech president tells Israeli Knesset

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/11/27/i-am-israels-best-friend-czech-president-says-in-address-to-knesset/
SHALOM CZECH MATE….RSK
In first ever speech to legislative body by a Czech leader, Milos Zeman blasts EU for hosting Palestinian terrorists • “If we betray Israel, we betray ourselves,” he says • Jerusalem Affairs Minister Elkin presents Zeman with Protector of Jerusalem Award.

In what was the first ever address by a Czech leader to Israel’s legislative body, President Milos Zeman sent a message of “solidarity with Israel and the Jewish people” to the Knesset on Monday.

Among those in attendance at the historic speech were President Reuven Rivlin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein.

The Joint Arab List boycotted Zeman’s address in light of his statements recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and questioning the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Zeman brought a smile to the faces of many in attendance when he said, “Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu said the Czech Republic is Israel’s best friend in Europe. I wonder, why only Europe? Anyway, I am the best friend of Israel in my whole country.”

Zeman said he hoped Tuesday’s dedication of the Czech House, a diplomatic mission set to focus on cultural exchange, in Jerusalem would lead to the relocation of the Czech Embassy to the city.

“I am no dictator, unfortunately, but I promise I will do my best,” he quipped.

In November, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis said Prague would not break with EU policy on the status of Jerusalem.

Visiting Chadian president announces country to renew diplomatic ties with Israel

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/11/27/visiting-chadian-president-announces-country-to-renew-diplomatic-ties-with-israel/

On historic Israel visit, Chadian President Idriss Déby stresses that move to renew diplomatic ties with Jerusalem in coming weeks does not mean country will ignore Palestinian cause • “We have no problem with Abbas or the Palestinians,” Déby says.

Visiting Chadian President Idriss Déby has announced he plans to renew diplomatic relations with Israel in the coming weeks.

In an interview with i24News, Déby stressed the move did not mean Chad would ignore the Palestinian cause.

Asked why he did not plan to hold meetings in Ramallah while in the region, Déby replied, “I am a former soldier and I fought wars. I know the price of war. I don’t wish it on any people in any country.

He said, “We came here this time with an exact plan because we have not had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1972, and the aim was to renew these relations.

Calling Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “a friend,” Déby said, “We have no problem with Abbas or the Palestinians. He [Abbas] is our friend and participated in all the African union committees.”

Déby noted that “the world is changing before our eyes. Crises and wars we knew are changing as well. We don’t wish them on today’s generation or future generations. There’s a time for war and a time for peace. Our message is global to all leaders. Chad doesn’t presume to speak for black Africa. Chad comes to renew bilateral diplomatic relations.

How Did Shane End Up? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/outsiders-trump-shane-save-the-day-but-are-ostracized/

The gunslinging outsider saved the vulnerable farmers, but they didn’t love him for it.

In director George Stevens’s classic 1953 Western, Shane, a mysterious stranger and gunfighter in buckskin with a violent past, rides into the middle of the late-1880s Wyoming range wars between cattle barons and homestead farmers. The community-minded farmers may have the law on their side, but the open-range cattlemen have the money and the gun-toting cowboys.

Shane enters the mess but decides to settle down, incognito, with a farm family, shed his past as a hired killer, and begin leading a settled and honest frontier life.

Almost immediately, however, he senses his tragic predicament. The West is not yet so civilized. The farmers, the future of civilization, hardly possess the gun-fighting ability to survive against the ruthless cattlemen and their hired guns.

So a reformed Shane is insidiously brought into the fray, as he figures out how to aid his new hosts while, at least at first, playing by their rules of civilized behavior.

Shane ultimately accepts that his second chance life is not sustainable. He learns that his newfound friends, the sodbusters, lack the skills to survive against Wilson, the cattlemen’s psychopathic hired killer.

Sensing that there’s no solution to his dilemma, Shane finally puts on his killer clothes again, straps on his six-gun, and kills Wilson and the brutal ringleaders of the cattlemen.

NOW WATCH: ‘McConnell Rejects Vote On Bill To Protect Mueller’

Stevens’s movie gives us the familiar paradox of the ostracized outsider and savior in tragic literature and film (The Magnificent Seven, The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, High Plains Drifter, Pale Rider . . . ). Although they hesitate to say so, the farmers, if they are to survive, must rely on the very antithesis of their own idealistic commitment to law, order, the settled life, and the way of the future. Shane himself wants to reject gunslinging and stay civilized.

But to do so would mean that Shane’s newfound friends would be killed or driven off by the cattlemen, and their farms returned to the open range — they don’t have the skills to win a range war against cowboys and hired guns. Yet by picking up his gun and going outside the law to take down the evildoers, Shane himself —apparently a former Confederate, Yankee-hating hired gun — loses his recent claim on civilized life.

Even the very farmers whom he will save are uncomfortable with the idea that Shane is willing to shoot someone to save them. Or as one self-righteous farmer puts it when Shane warns the sodbusters about the dangers of the cattlemen’s hired gun, Wilson, “I don’t want no part of gunslinging. Murder’s a better name.” Shane himself appears impatient with gradual change and seems to believe that he alone, not the distant law, can stop the murderous bullies.

The movie ends in classic tragic-hero fashion: Shane rides into cattlemen’s town alone, wins his gunfights, is wounded, and finally rides off alone into the stormy Grand Tetons — content that he rid the farmers’ valley of the hired guns. The means he used to save the sodbusters are precisely those that must have no place in an agrarian world that, thanks to him, is now peaceful. Only a small boy, Joey, will yell out, “Shane! Come back!”

Stevens leaves the exact fate of Shane is doubt — at least sort of. We do not know the true extent of his wounds. And where will he end up on the trail? As a gunfighter, he can never settle down in the turn-of-the-century, civilizing West that no longer has a place for either him or his enemies.

Or, as Shane puts it at the end of the movie to Joey, the son of his farming hosts:

A man has to be what he is. . . . Can’t break the mold. There’s no living with a killing. There’s no going back from one. Right or wrong, it’s a brand. A brand sticks. There’s no going back.

The Invaders and Their Allies By Pedro Gonzalez

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/27/the-i

There is a war on for hearts and minds of Americans, and it began long before the first shots were fired on Sunday along the United States-Mexico border, when federal agents deployed tear gas against aggressive foreign nationals attempting to force their way into our country.

But the media coverage of the border skirmish is more telling of the nature of this conflict than canisters of lachrymator. There are three news clippings that might illustrate this point.

CNN, to start, placed scrambling Central American “families with young children” in the limelight of the clash, yet didn’t show those same people hurling large stones in the direction of American law enforcement, many of whom presumably have families with young children, too.

ABC News, on the other hand, didn’t mention at all that foreign nationals endangered federal agents. “Children were screaming and coughing in the mayhem” that, if one were to read nothing but ABC’s “The Latest,” would seem to have been induced spasmodically by trigger-happy Border Patrol—who, for what it’s worth, are mostly Latino.

The worst offender was perhaps the Associated Press. Making no mention of projectile attacks by foreign nationals directed at Americans, the AP quoted one Honduran to keep the narrative slanted favorably toward would-be illegal aliens. “We ran, but when you run the gas asphyxiates you more,” Ana Zuniga told the AP “while cradling her 3-year-old daughter Valery in her arms.”

What sort of mother would attempt to penetrate a heavily guarded border as part of a violent mob with a toddler in arm? Likely the same that lined up for paychecks from unknown benefactors along with their children in order to participate in this debacle. But who paid them is not so important as the fact that they accepted the payment, and some have since charged headlong against Mexican and now American law enforcement with their children by their side. Mercenaries, then, not “migrants” come our way. Are these the “family values” we want to import?

Under cover of media spin designed to tug at heartstrings, opportunistic outrage from progressives was as predictable as the clash itself.

In the lead up to this incident, progressive politicos and pundits were preoccupied with what they believed was President Trump’s inappropriate use of the word “invasion” to describe thousands of people marching toward our border, under the banner that they would “rather die fighting” than be denied entry to the United States.