Displaying posts published in

July 2019

Finally The U.S. (aka Trump) Has Caught On To What The G20 Is About Francis Menton

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-7-1-finally-the-us-aka-trump-has-ca

Everybody knows what the G20 is about. Everybody, that is, except high-ranking members of the Democratic Party, the “establishment” branch of the Republican Party, the mainstream press, and the U.S. State Department career bureaucracy. Those people somehow think that what the G20 is about is reasonable people trying to work together in good faith to solve the world’s problems. Really! (Could anybody be that dumb? Yes. In fact, the “smarter” they appear to be from their credentials, the dumber they prove to be when it comes to understanding world affairs.)

And by the way, I don’t mean particularly to single out the G20, other than by the fact that they were just holding their annual meeting last week in Japan. Essentially all major international organizations, from the UN on down, are about the exact same thing.

And here’s the thing that all those organizations are about: They are about trying to disadvantage the United States in international competition, and to hit up the United States for big money to be redistributed by the international bureaucrats. But then, I think you already knew that.

So there was President Trump over at the G20 meeting in Japan last week, and they present him with a draft of a so-called “Joint Statement” that everybody is supposed to sign. A lot of it is the usual anodyne diplomatic bafflegab. But then there is the section headed “Climate Change” (starting at paragraph 35). “Climate” is the issue on which the international bureaucrats have come to believe that self-respecting Americans can be made to feel so guilty that they will give you anything you want, and pay any number you might name. So here are a few of the things that they have thrown in under the heading of “Climate”:

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld:Sweden Is a Perplexing Location for an Antisemitism Conference

https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/sweden-antisemitism-conference/

Sweden’s Social Democrat PM Stefan Löfven has announced that his country will host an international antisemitism conference to commemorate the Holocaust. This gathering of heads of state and governments is planned for October 27-28, 2020, and is to be held in Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmö.

This is a perplexing announcement. One would expect the initiative for such a conference to come from a country that has made serious efforts to fight antisemitism. Sweden has a long history of unanswered antisemitic incidents. The Board of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Sweden voted in 2016 to accept the definition of antisemitism – yet the country does not accept the definition domestically (while the UK, Germany, Austria, Israel, and a number of other countries do). Extreme manifestations of antisemitism, unequaled elsewhere, have taken place in Sweden. The Jewish community of the Swedish town of Umea had to disband entirely because it was threatened by neo-Nazis and harassed by radical Muslims.

In May of this year, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRA) released a report on antisemitic hate crimes. The report notes that Jew-hatred in Sweden stems from the left wing, the right wing, and the Muslim population. Antisemitism is openly expressed, and “there are few places where people with a Jewish background feel safe.”

Germany: Some Hate Speech ‘More Equal than Others’ by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14484/germany-hate-speech-al-quds

Although the “military arm” of Hezbollah is prohibited in the EU, the “political arm” is not, which means that in Germany, Hezbollah is free to engage in “non-military” activities — such as fundraising.

On the one hand, the federal police conduct countrywide raids on middle-aged Germans who post their thoughts on Facebook, while on the other, members of openly lethal terrorist organizations who espouse nothing but hatred towards a specific ethnic group, the Jews, are not only allowed to march in the heart of the German capital… but are free to organize and fundraise for their purpose.

That participants in the anti-Semitic Al Quds march have been allowed to flaunt their hatred for nearly four decades now, while middle-aged Germans are having their apartments searched for anti-Semitic and racist messages on Facebook, exposes a disturbing double standard in the application of the law.

At the very least, it shows that German authorities appear to harbor extremely selective views of what constitutes hate speech, based, it seems, on nothing more than the identity of the group that voices it.

In June, the “Al Quds Day” march took place in Berlin. Al Quds Day, in the words of the late historian Robert S. Wistrich, is “The holiday proclaimed by Khomeini in 1979 to call for Israel’s annihilation” which “has since been celebrated worldwide…”

In Germany, Al Quds Day marches have been taking place in the country’s capital since the 1980s[1], first in Bonn and since 1996 in Berlin. On Al Quds Day in December 2000, more than 2,000 demonstrators in the Kurfürstendamm — a central boulevard in Berlin — called for “the liberation of Palestine and the holy city of Jerusalem”. In November 2002, only one year after 9/11, the march featured slogans such as “Death to Israel” and “Death to the USA”. At the march in 2016, the slogans were, among others, “Death to Israel”, “Zionists kill children”, and so on.

Despite nearly four decades of such rhetoric — the kind that is arguably capable — according to paragraph 130 of Germany’s Criminal Code, which prohibits hate speech — “of disturbing the public peace” by inciting “hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins”, German authorities have continually refused to ban the Al Quds Day march. The argument is, reportedly, that the Administrative Court would overrule such a ban. “A constitutional state must act in accordance with the rule of law,” said the spokesperson for the interior administration of the city of Berlin, Martin Pallgen. “Freedom of assembly and expression also applies to those who reject the rule of law”. Instead, German authorities have prohibited marchers from being overtly anti-Semitic and inciting hatred against Jews. The exercise is a bit like telling a neo-Nazi march please to cover up the swastikas to look more presentable.

Dublin’s Anti-Israel Boycott Bill: Bad for Ireland, Worse for the Palestinians, Terrible for Everyone by Lawrence A. Franklin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14483/ireland-israel-boycott-bill

The chief government figure opposing the bill is Foreign Minister Simon Coveney. Coveney argues that Ireland risks its standing in the European Union because the bill is legally unsound. He is correct. A Brussels-based EU trade official warned the Irish government that “the bill would be in contravention of EU competence on trade matters,” as the EU Commercial Treaty demands uniformity in member-state trade policies.

Irish politicians who passed it would likely be regarded as racist, particularly in view of the German Parliament’s recent resolution to designate BDS (the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel) as anti-Semitic.
In addition, there could be “potentially huge losses of US tax benefits for US companies with subsidiaries in Ireland, if the Bill is passed into law. This could potentially lead to major US companies pulling out of Ireland, and for other companies who were considering relocating, to not do so.”

The bill may also may well hurt Ireland’s effort to secure a position on the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the 2020-2021 vote by regional member-states in the General Assembly. Canada and Norway are competing with Ireland for the two seats allotted to the UNSC’s West Europe/North America region.

[The] legislation… will harm the interests of Palestinians — an estimated 30,000 of whom are employed by Israeli businesses in the West Bank… The Ireland Israel Alliance also accuses the bill’s supporters of hypocrisy, and cites their failure to condemn analogous situations in which Irish firms invest in international companies that do business in other occupied territories around the world.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar and his governing Fine Gael party oppose a bill that would make it a crime for Irish citizens to import or sell anything produced by Israelis in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Varadkar may wisely be pressuring politicians who voted in favor of the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill to examine the possible negative consequences for Ireland’s national interest if the bill becomes law.

Is Chief Justice Roberts the Jim Comey of the Supreme Court? By Ken Masugi

https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/01/is-chief-justice-roberts-the-jim-comey-of-the-supreme-court/

American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp last week called for Chief Justice John Roberts’ impeachment over his vote with four liberal justices to deny the Trump Administration a total victory on whether the Census could include a question on citizenship.

Schlapp, whose wife Mercedes is the Trump White House communications director, goes too far—though he may have tapped into an understandable conservative sentiment. I don’t believe Roberts is quite the Jim Comey of the Supreme Court, yet he seems to be asking for the label. Comey’s troubles surfaced when he tried both to condemn and absolve Hillary Clinton of criminal security breaches. All the while, he self-righteously claimed to cleave to a higher loyalty. But that loyalty seems to have ensnared him in an even more insidious conspiracy, which the Justice Department is now investigating.

For his part—and the comparison with Comey goes only so far—Roberts in trying to depoliticize a case ended up protecting partisanship within the government, that is to say within the bureaucracy. He had done something similar in his 2012 opinion on the Affordable Care Act—finding its mandate a constitutional tax after declaring the law unconstitutional based on the main commerce clause arguments presented. In allegedly taking politics out of his opinion Roberts also removes the Constitution. (To be fair, he also enabled Republicans to gain majorities in Congress that should have repealed the ACA, but those majorities failed to it.)

As President Trump blasted the partisan actions of various judges, the chief justice shot back, claiming there are “not Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” Trump replied, “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.” 

The Left’s Political Hit Squads Prep for 2020 By Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/01/the-lefts-political-hit-squads-prep-for-2020/

Lots of people are very angry with Bret Stephens.

But the outrage isn’t coming from the Trump supporters whom Stephens, one of the New York Times’ token “conservative” columnists, routinely maligns. The NeverTrump pundit is under heavy fire from the Left for a frank—and fair—assessment of how “ordinary” Americans view the extreme positions staked out by nearly every Democratic presidential candidate during last week’s primary debates.

In his June 28 column, “A Wretched Start for the Democrats,” Stephens blasts Democrats for making “too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.”

Stephens questions the mainstream appeal of a party platform that promises free healthcare for illegal immigrants; the elimination of private insurance coverage; student loan forgiveness; and universal child care. But one passage in particular earned him the most scorn: “They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes.”

Now, only to the ears of your average Times subscriber or disciple of the Left is that some kind of heresy, or dog whistle to tiki torch-bearing white supremacists. For the rest of us, it’s obvious that Stephens is referring to the Democratic Party’s almost singular focus on the welfare of illegal immigrants—both currently residing in the United States and now attempting to cross the southern border in record numbers—while ignoring the woes of millions of American citizens.

Straining to Defend Rashida Tlaib at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Why the leftist Jewish media leaped to the defense of a Jew-hater in Congress. Kenneth Levin

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274172/straining-defend-rashida-tlaib-jewish-telegraphic-kenneth-levin

Attacks on Israel that distort the reality of the Jewish state’s past and present in the service of undermining its well-being and its very survival have become ever more widely disseminated in bastions of the Left in America. This is occurring most strikingly in academia, among both students and faculty, but also in prominent mainstream media and even within the Democrat party. At the same time, those Jews who align themselves with the Left often resort to the most contrived of contortions to mitigate the message of such attacks.

A representative example of this phenomenon was recently provided by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)’s editor-in-chief, Andrew Silow-Carroll. The context was his contribution to the storm of comment in response to Rashida Tlaib’s remarks in a May interview on the podcast Skullduggery. Silow-Carroll’s article was entitled, “What did Rashida Tlaib say about the Holocaust? It’s probably not what you think.” What makes the piece particularly noteworthy is that the JTA is a news service whose stories are picked up by Jewish papers around the world and the rhetoric of its articles, not least that of pieces by its editor-in-chief, is shaped to have a desired impact on the service’s Jewish readership. In Silow-Carroll’s gloss on the Tlaib interview – as in many other articles put out by the JTA having to do with Israel and its critics on the Left – the rhetoric is clearly intended to reassure readers that attacks on Israel from the Left, in this case the Democrat Congresswoman’s statements, were not so problematic and that reactions to the contrary are overwrought.

The primal scream of climate change fanatics By Bob Weir

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/07/the_primal_scream_of_climate_change_fanatics.html

In 1968, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, which became a bestseller.  The premise of the book was that worldwide famine was going to destroy humanity.  According to the professor, this frightening scenario was scheduled to happen in the 1970s and 1980s, due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals.  Hmmm…sounds as though he was giving mankind about 12 years before Armageddon would occur.  Whom does that remind you of?  Anyway, his solution was immediate action to limit population growth!  We know how well that worked out!

During the 1970s, we entered a period of academic conjecture on a subject that came to be known as global cooling.  This theory was based on studies that suggested that a buildup of glaciers was occurring and could cause imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface, leading to another Ice Age.  Glaciers are made up of fallen snow that, over many years, compresses into large, thickened ice masses.  Presently, glaciers occupy about 10 percent of the world’s total land area, with most located in polar regions like Antarctica, Greenland, and the Canadian Arctic.  Glaciers are remnants from the last Ice Age, when ice covered nearly 32 percent of the land and 30 percent of the oceans.  At 10 percent, we’re doing well.

As we moved into the 1980s, another climate scare was taking root.  Acid rain gave new meaning to the term “the sky is falling.”  According to the alarmists of that era, there was a form of precipitation that contained an acidic quality with elevated levels of hydrogen ions.  They claimed that the acid rain was having harmful effects on plants, aquatic animals, and our infrastructure.  Nothing much was said about walking in the rain or drinking rainwater.  After a series of studies and the emergence of a new term called the “ozone hole,” life went on pretty much the same as always.

Trump’s Healthy Tax Break An expansion of health reimbursement accounts is good news for workers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-healthy-tax-break-11562021565

By the left’s account you’d think the Trump Administration’s only ambition on health care is to rip insurance from the poor and sick. So note that a Health and Human Services rule finalized last month represents a dramatic expansion in health-care choices for those who may have limited insurance options.

The Trump Administration finished regulations expanding health reimbursement arrangements, often known as HRAs. The arrangements will allow an employer to give a worker tax-exempt dollars to buy a health-insurance plan in the individual market. Such arrangements have existed in some form since the early 2000s, but the Obama Administration used the Affordable Care Act to limit them.

The practical effect of the new rule is to extend the tax advantage for employer health care to individuals who purchase their own insurance. This would help to rectify an injustice in the tax code, which favors employer insurance. The better route economically would be to nix the employer tax exclusion, but Republicans in 2017 couldn’t even agree to nibble at the tax preference as part of doomed bills repealing and replacing ObamaCare. Alas.

Peaceful Hong Kong Demonstrations Escalate as Protesters Storm Legislative Council; 550k Take to Streets By Brian Min

https://pjmedia.com/trending/peaceful-hong-kong-protests-escalate-as-protesters-storm-legislative-council-550k-take-to-streets/

On July 1, Hong Kong marked the 22nd anniversary of its return to Chinese rule with peaceful protests that partly turned into violent clashes, exposing divisions within the protest movement.

Consistent with the activities of the past months, protesters demanded the permanent withdrawal of a bill that would allow extraditions to the Chinese mainland and the resignation of city leader Carrie Lam.

Around 550,000 Hong Kong protesters marched peacefully on the streets in the afternoon without any scenes of violence or chaos.

From around 4 a.m. until 8 a.m. local time, protesters initially clashed with the police when they attempted to unsuccessfully block Lam from attending the flag-raising ceremony where the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China is celebrated.

At around 9 p.m. local time, hundreds of protesters attacked the Legislative Council building—the headquarters of the unicameral legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, accessing it through an entryway that they had smashed with the help of a metal trolley, poles, and scaffolding.

According to the South China Morning Post, when the protesters initially entered the Legislative Council, the police “were nowhere to be seen.” CNN claims that some Hong Kong police were present “in full riot gear,” but did not take actions.

In addition to smashing touchscreen panels and vandalizing the walls, protesters ripped down and smashed portraits of Legislative Council President Andrew Leung and former President Rita Fan, and dismantled closed-circuit cameras inside the building.