Displaying posts published in

October 2019

Gabbard Responds to Hillary’s Russia Attacks, Challenges Her to Join Dem Primary By Tobias Hoonhout

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-responds-to-hillary-clinton-russia-attacks-challenges-her-to-join-democratic-primary/

After Hillary Clinton suggested that the Russian government was “grooming” her for a third-party run in the 2020 presidential elections, Hawaii representative and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard returned fire Friday afternoon, challenging the 2016 Democratic nominee to join her in the 2020 primaries.

In a fiery response to Clinton’s accusation, Gabbard called the former secretary of state “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.”

The staunchly non-interventionist Gabbard has been consistently dogged by suggestions that her campaign panders to the alt-right and Russia. During Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, she accused CNN and the New York Times, who were co-hosting the event, of smearing her with “completely despicable coverage.”

Clinton made headlines earlier Friday for suggesting that Gabbard was “the favorite of the Russians” among the field, and that the Kremlin was “grooming” her for a “vigorous third-party challenge in the key states” in 2020.

Hillary Clinton Engages In Insane Conspiracy Theory Attacking Tulsi Gabbard By Tristan Justice

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18/hillary-clinton-engages-in-insane-conspiracy-theory-attacking-tulsi-gabbard/

Former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton claimed Tuesday that the Russians are propping up U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii for a third-party presidential run in 2020.

“I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said of Russia’s involvement in the next presidential election on former Obama White House advisor David Plouffe’s podcast. “She’s the favorite of the Russians.”

During the interview, Clinton also branded former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein as a Russian asset.

“That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which, she might not ’cause she’s also a Russian asset.” Clinton added. “She’s a Russian asset, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

Pelosi’s impeachment drive is all politics, no law Andrew C. McCarthy

https://nypost.com/2019/10/16/pelosis-impeachment-drive-is-all-politics-no-law/

President Trump won’t budge: He refuses to comply with demands for information because the House has not formally voted to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

House Democrats won’t budge: Speaker Nancy Pelosi says nothing requires the House to vote for an impeachment inquiry before conducting one.

So who is right? They both are.

We are an over-lawyered society that likes to see itself as governed by the rule of law. In truth, our fundamental law, the Constitution, is about the division of political authority — particularly between the Congress and the executive, the federal government’s political branches.

The ultimate check on presidential power is impeachment. Article I vests the sole power over impeachment in the House of Representatives. (The Senate is assigned the sole power to conduct impeachment trials and decide whether the president should be removed from office.)

Often overlooked, though, is a critical constitutional check on Congress: It is powerless to enforce its own laws and demands for information. Only the president can execute. Congress needs the executive branch’s cooperation.

When presidents believe congressional actions are unconstitutional, they often refuse to cooperate. Congress may threaten contempt and impeachment, but it cannot make the president comply. Our brows furrow as we try to sort out the legal ramifications of all this. But in the main, the fallout is not a legal dispute; it is a political contest.

The Constitution is designed to promote both cooperation and competition between the political branches. Often, the judiciary stays out of these duels, prudently reasoning that the Framers endowed the executive and the legislature with powerful tools to confront each other.

Maneuvering To Force The U.S. To Accept Immigrants Who Will Become Public Charges Francis Menton

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&

“Vile.” “Repugnant to the American dream.” “Cruel.” “Callous and despicable.” “An abhorrent act of moral terrorism.” These are just a few of the comments that have been uttered in the past few weeks with respect to a policy change recently announced by the federal government. (These comments come, respectively, from Attorney General Xavier Bacerra of California, U.S. District Judge George Daniels, Congresswoman Grace Meng (D-NY), Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA), and Families USA.)

I know what you are thinking: What completely sensible thing has the Trump administration done now?

The quoted comments all relate to a so-called “final rule” issued by the Department of Homeland Security in the Federal Register on August 14, scheduled to take effect on October 15, on the subject of “Inadmissibility [for immigration] Based on Public Charge Grounds.”

So what is this new rule, and what about it has caused the progressive left to go completely berserk?

Here’s my take: Since Immigration Act of 1882, the U.S. immigration statutes have in clear terms explicitly instructed that entry be denied to any person deemed “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” Despite the rather explicit language of Congress, the Clinton administration, in “guidance” issued in 1999, found a way to effectively read this provision out of the statute and admit large numbers of immigrants without regard to whether they were likely to become, or even were already, public charges. The Trump administration has now specified a basis on which the statute can and will be enforced as written and intended. Cue the outrage!

Let’s go through this in some more detail. The Immigration Act of 1882 was the very first general immigration statute in the U.S., so the “public charge” basis for exclusion of an applicant for a visa has existed for as long as we have had immigration laws. The relevant language has changed somewhat over the years, as extensive amendments and updates to immigration laws have been enacted; however, as far as I can determine, none of the changes have been material. Here is the current version of the “public charge” provision, as codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(4):

John Durham obtains key BlackBerrys connected to origins of Russia-Trump probe Tom Tillison

www.bizpacreview.com/2019/10/18/john-durham-obtains-key-blackberrys-connected-to-origins-of-russia-trump-probe-840904

 

Reading like the greatest spy novel ever written, leaving followers salivating over the next chapter, regardless of allegiance to the players involved, the targeting of then-candidate Donald Trump by the U.S. intelligence apparatus under former President Barack Obama just keeps getting better.

Following special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that allegations of collusion between the president’s campaign and Russia were little more than a hoax, Attorney General William Barr tasked John Durham, the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut, with investigating the investigators — in effect, to determine how Trump had become a target.

On Thursday, the Washington Times reported Durham has acquired two BlackBerrys used by Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud, who’s intricately linked to the whole story.

More from The Times:

Sidney Powell, attorney for retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, filed a court motion on Monday disclosing the phones’ existence while tying them to Western intelligence.

She told The Washington Times on Thursday that she has confirmed that it was Mr. Durham’s office who obtained them.

Powell filed a motion in district court to have the government turn over the data on the BlackBerrys. Flynn is facing a tentative sentencing hearing on Dec. 18.

“This information is material, exculpatory, and relevant to the defense of Mr. Flynn, and specifically to the “OCONUS LURES” and agents that western intelligence tasked against him likely as early as 2014 to arrange—unbeknownst to him—‘connections’ with certain Russians that they would then use against him in their false claims. The phones were used by Mr. Joseph Mifsud,” the motion reads, according to The Times.

UK: Last Call for Boris Johnson’s Brexit Bus by Andrew Ash

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15042/brexit-last-call

Having put everything on the line by staking his reputation and premiership in defiance of his detractors’ shameless cynicism, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson seems to be energised by the new Brexit deal. With a bit of luck, his tenacity might just pay off — and the agonising wait to be free of the EU will finally be over.

“We’ve got a great new deal that takes back control,” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted after last minute negotiations with European Union leaders in Brussels. The deal will now require the approval of both the European Parliament and UK Parliament – who have so far tried everything they can to derail the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU). According to the BBC:

MPs have voted to hold an extra sitting in the Commons on Saturday to discuss the next steps.

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the government would hold a vote on the deal and was not “not contemplating defeat”.

But, he added, if the plan did not get the backing of MPs, the alternative was leaving without a deal.

The no-deal Brexit mentioned by Gove is something with which many might be quite happy.

Those who voted to leave the EU in 2016 might well find it hard not view the latest proceedings with a cynical eye, but it finally looks as though a departure from the EU could be real — despite one half of the Conservative Party’s coalition government — Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) — failing to support it. Stating the obvious by insisting that the Johnson is “too eager by far to get a deal at any cost”, Nigel Dodds, the leader of the Conservatives’ DUP bedfellows, appears not quite to get the point. After releasing a statement stating that the DUP could not back the proposals “as things stand,” they somewhat unhelpfully failed to provide much further information.

Who Gets Blamed if ISIS Fighters Come Back? by Con Coughlin

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15038/isis-prisoners-return

US President Donald Trump personally made a number of appeals to European leaders requesting they do more to take responsibility for their ISIS-affiliated nationals… the Europeans refused to budge, arguing that having them return home would increase the risk of Islamist-inspired acts of terrorism….

There is now the very real prospect that ISIS, which only a year ago had suffered a catastrophic defeat with the destruction of its so-called caliphate, will be able to regroup as hordes of liberated fighters from Europe and elsewhere rejoin its ranks.

If that happens, and ISIS succeeds in launching a new wave of terror attacks against Western targets, European leaders will have only themselves to blame for failing to accept responsibility for the actions of their citizens, no matter how reprehensible they might be.

Ever since the US-led coalition succeeded in destroying most of ISIS in Syria, one vital issue has left been unresolved, namely: what to do with the thousands of ISIS fighters who were taken prisoner and confined to Kurdish-run detention centres.

The problem is particularly acute with regard to the estimated 2,500 foreign fighters — the majority of them holding European passports — and their dependents who abandoned their home countries for fight for ISIS.

Given the depth of their betrayal — turning their backs on nations where they have been raised and nurtured to join the barbarians of ISIS — it is quite understandable that Western governments should recoil in horror when defeated ISIS fighters and their associates then announce they want to return home.

In Britain, for example, there was much controversy earlier in the year concerning the case of Shamima Begum who, as a 15-year-old teenager, left her home in east London in 2015 to become the bride of an ISIS fighter.

Earlier this year, she resurfaced, languishing in a Kurdish-run camp, from where she made an impassioned call to be allowed to return home, even though, during her absence, the British government had already cancelled her British citizenship. Her request received short shrift from London, which insisted she had lost her right to be a British citizen by dint of her decision to join a banned terrorist organisation, one of whose prime objectives is to carry out terrorist attacks against British targets.

The Adventures of Commodore Levy, U.S.N. William Bryk *****

https://www.splicetoday.com/writing/the-adventures-of-commodore-levy-u-s-n

A sailor of great professional skill and courage, he was proud, arrogant, and self-righteous.

Born April 22, 1792 (Nissan 30, 5552), Uriah Phillips Levy was 10 years old when he ran away to sea. He returned two years later, as he’d promised his mother, to prepare for his bar mitzvah. Then he apprenticed to a Philadelphia ship owner. In our day of wooden men and iron ships, “learning the ropes” is a cliché. To Levy, it was life and death. A square-rigger has more than 200 ropes (called lines), each has a name and a function, and Levy had to know them all. To confuse a clew line with a halyard, or a lee brace with a weather backstay, could mean a dismasted ship and the endangerment of all aboard her.

Within nine years, as Levy wrote, “I passed through every grade of service—cabin boy, ordinary seaman, able-bodied seaman, boatswain, third mate, second mate, first mate, to that of captain…” In 1809, while on shore leave in Tortola, a British press gang seized him. He was carrying his papers. However, a Royal Marine sergeant sneered, “You don’t look like an American to me. You look like a Jew.” Levy replied, “I am an American and a Jew.” “If the Americans have Jew peddlers manning their ships, it’s no wonder they sail so badly,” the Royal Marine replied. Levy hit him full in the face. Hitting a Royal Marine in the face is almost invariably a mistake. When Levy came to in the brig of HMS Vermeer, the officer of the watch was shoving a New Testament at him and demanding he swear himself into the Royal Navy. Levy refused, saying, “I am an American and I cannot swear allegiance to your king. And I am a Jew, and do not swear on your testament, or with my head uncovered.” Somehow, he gained an audience with Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, who agreed that his papers were valid and ordered him released.

In 1811, at 19, he became master and part owner of the brig George Washington. He nailed a mezuzah outside his cabin door, a small box containing Biblical verses that signified his cabin was a Jewish home. When the United States declared war on Great Britain in 1812, Levy entered the U.S. Navy as a sailing master. Levy was captured when his ship was taken by a British warship. He was imprisoned at Dartmoor for 16 months, during a winter so cold the Thames froze solid to the bottom. He learned French and fencing; he failed only in organizing a congregation among the prisoners for want of a minyan, the traditional quorum of 10.

Bloody murder is not ‘normative’ Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Bloody-murder-is-not-normative-605035
32-year-old Michal Sela’s killing is a perfect example of pundits and the public trying to make sense of it by adopting a socio-political stance before the ink of the printing presses are dry.

With new details emerging about the recent murder of 32-year-old social worker Michal Sela at the hands of her husband, Eliran Malul, many initial judgments about the case require reevaluating.

As frequently happens when faced with unfathomable evil in Israeli society, pundits and the public try to make sense of it by adopting a socio-political stance well before both the blood of the victim and ink of the printing presses are dry. Sela’s killing is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Her story, or at least what we know of it so far, is one that lends itself to individual and collective speculation for seemingly contradictory reasons.

On the one hand, the young wife and mother – whose social media photos and posts show a beautiful and vibrant woman beaming with gratitude for her blessings – could be any one of us. Or any of our married daughters. We therefore identify with, if not partly envy, her life.

On the other, her tragic end is incomprehensible. Beyond the pale. The stuff that crime novels and movies are made of. After all, Sela was stabbed multiple times and left to bleed to death in her home by the father of the ostensibly happy couple’s eight-month-old baby girl. An infant not yet weaned from breast milk, who witnessed her daddy slash her mommy with a butcher knife and then turn the weapon on himself.

Wanting the Worst by Peter Wood

https://www.lawliberty.org/liberty-classic/wanting-the-worst-helmut-schoeck-envy/

Peter Wood is President of the National Association of Scholars. He is the author of A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now (Encounter Books, 2007) and of Diversity: The Invention of a Concept (Encounter Books, 2003). He is also the 2019 recipient of the Jeane Kirkpatrick Award for Academic Freedom.

“Let’s talk about envy. Give us some more beer…”

That’s Ivan, in Yuri Olesha’s short novel, Envy, published in 1927. Ivan is drawing the young and envious Nikolai further into a plot to disrupt Soviet society. His protégé, Nikolai Kavalero, dreams of glory but is stuck on the margins of society. He stews over the privileges and honors bestowed on others. Ivan feeds Nickolai’s envy, his sense of unfair exclusion.

Olesha’s novel is cited by Helmut Schoeck in his magisterial work, Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour, originally published in German in 1966 and republished by Liberty Fund in 1987. According to Schoeck, Olesha’s novel is a rarity in openly addressing this powerful and disruptive emotion. Envy, says Schoeck, is something we all feel but hardly ever talk about. Other negative emotions are granted a degree of public respect. We can admit to hatred, fear, and even jealousy, but envy is a quality we attribute only to others, whose envy is to be feared.

That’s because the envious have only one real goal: to see the people they envy brought low. In Schoeck’s telling, the envious man doesn’t want the good things—the house, the farm, the wife, the children—of the person he envies. He simply wants that person to lose those good things. The pleasure he looks forward to is the misery of his rival. The rival, moreover, need not even know he is the target of envy. The man who envies hides his resentment, typically by dressing it up in the clothes of altruism. He calls for “social justice,” for example, when what he really wants is to inflict suffering on the people he resents.