Displaying posts published in

October 2019

There Is No Basis for Barr to Recuse Himself Over Ukraine By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/there-is-no-basis-for-barr-to-recuse-himself-over-ukraine/

“Senator Feinstein’s claim, on behalf of Judiciary Committee Democrats, that Attorney General Barr should recuse himself is nonsense, both factually and legally. He should ignore it.”

Even if he did what the Democrats claim (which he didn’t), it would contain nothing to justify recusal.

Here’s a question: If Dianne Feinstein didn’t recuse herself from the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, why should anyone ever be recused from anything?

Senator Feinstein is in the news, making the characteristically hyperpartisan and frivolous claim (on Twitter) that Attorney General Bill Barr should

recuse himself from matters related to Ukraine because of concerns about his role in President Trump’s efforts to damage a political opponent and undermine the Russia investigation.

Feinstein says she is speaking for Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, all of whom have signed a letter to the AG.

There is no basis for Barr to recuse himself.

First, before we ever get to the law, the Democrats’ claim is factually vacant. The AG has no role in President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Barr did not ask the president to intercede with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for the purpose of seeking assistance with the ongoing Durham probe of the Russia investigation. Despite the president’s reference to Barr in the July 25 Zelensky phone call, Barr did not communicate with Trump about Ukraine before the call. Barr did not follow up with the Ukrainians, nor did he discuss Ukraine with the president or the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Being mentioned on a phone call is not a basis for recusal.

Europe: Cooperative Free Nations or Overly Controlled by Brussels? by Josef Zbořil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15050/eu-freedom-control

” We are not ‘citizens of the world’… ; we are also not citizens of Europe. We are inhabitants of Europe, but citizens of our nation states…” — Václav Klaus; MCC Budapest Summit on Migration; Hungary; March 23, 2019.

“The European elites understood that to succeed in their ambition to get rid of the nation-states and to create a State of Europe… they have to dissolve the old existing nations by mixing them with migrants from all over the world. By means of this procedure they want to create a new, truly European man, a Homo bruxellarum. This is the main reason why they are – without paying attention to all kinds of negative and destructive side-effects – supporting and promoting mass migration.” — Václav Klaus, MCC Budapest Summit on Migration, Hungary; March 23, 2019.

“Multiculturalism is not a manifestation of Europe’s generosity, or some noble embodiment of love and truth. [It] is what remains after mass migration reveals itself as a threat, rather than a benefit, to the economies of European countries.” — Jan Keller, Czech sociologist, October 16, 2018.

“The [European] community must rely fully on the spiritual, intellectual, and political values that in recent decades have been maintained, cultivated, and practiced in the democratic countries of Western Europe. I mean values like political and economic plurality, parliamentary democracy, respect for civil rights and freedoms, the decentralization of local administration and municipal government, and all that these things imply…It does not mean adaptation to something alien…” — Vaclav Havel, “Summer Meditations”, 1991.

Europe is in the throes of an internal debate between those who continue to view it as a constellation of free nations and those who see it as an entity controlled by Brussels.

Although the Brexit controversy may highlight this split, the conflict — as the former Czech President (and former Prime Minister), Václav Klaus, pointed out 13 years ago — has been raging for decades:

In his 2006 book, What is Europeism, Or, What Should Not be the Future for Europe?, Klaus wrote:

“For half a century there has been an ongoing dispute in Europe between the advocates of the liberalization model of European integration – which was based primarily on intergovernmental cooperation of individual European countries (which kept significant majority of parameters of their political, social and economic systems in their own hands) and on the removal of all unnecessary barriers to human activities existing on the borders of states – and the advocates of the harmonization (or homogenization) integration model, which is based on unification from above, orchestrated by the EU-authorities, with the ambition to level-out all aspects of life for all Europeans …

Sweden: What to Do About Gang Violence? by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15090/sweden-gang-violence

In Sweden, crucial societal issues, such as who is behind the current crime epidemic, are a public taboo.

“With the exception of three people in the survey, all have been offered help since they were boys. Some of them were already registered with the police as ten-year-olds… They have undergone programs… far from the criminal environment in Malmö…. It has not worked. In many cases, social services use the same words: all resources have been exhausted. Put another way: what the social services have done so far does not help, and there are no more measures to try out”. — Sydsvenskan, September 21, 2019

The government therefore recently presented a new initiative, which seeks to tackle the gang violence. The government proposal, however, never specifically mentions who is mainly behind the gang violence and that its own migration policies have in large part created the situation in which Swedish society now finds itself.

These are facts that mainstream politicians have avoided discussing openly for years. The question is: How do you solve a critical societal problem… without talking about it openly?

It does not seem likely that any of these hardened criminals will be swayed much by “increased investments in schools and social services in ‘vulnerable areas'”, as one of the government proposals suggests.

“Since 2015, 32 people have been shot dead in 30 separate acts in Malmö’s latest murder wave. Our survey of the murders shows that more than 120 young men are linked to them in different ways”, according to a recent series of reports about gang violence in the Swedish mainstream newspaper, Sydsvenskan.

“There is much talk about ‘gang wars’ in Malmö,” the report relates.

“Nothing indicates that there are fixed groupings with hierarchical structures and regulated activities in Malmö’s crime world. Rather, on the contrary — everything can be seen as one single gang. And there is civil war [within the gang]. We have mapped 200 criminals in the city. Most of them know each other – they have grown up together, been schoolmates, shared housing and moved in the same circles. Of these, we have selected 20 men for closer examination. Either because they are suspected of having shot, planned or otherwise contributed to the murders. Or that they themselves have fallen victim. And for being identified… as central people in Malmö’s crime world in recent years. At least 18 of the murders have, according to our review, occurred within the relatively narrow circle of these 20 men”.

Boot, meet mouth… again By J.R. Dunn

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/boot_meet_mouth_again.html

Kneejerk #NeverTrumper Max Boot monopolized the bottom of the cesspool in his response to the successful raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, easily edging out Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the rest  of his media peers.

In his response to the death of al-Baghdadi, a vicious cult leader who specialized in the murder of helpless civilians (particularly young women), Boot chose to concentrate on a single statement made by President Trump in his speech announcing the successful mission: “[al-Baghdadi] died like a coward… whimpering and crying and screaming all the way.” 

Not so, insists the judicious Boot:

Trump could not possibly have heard “whimpering and crying” on the overhead imagery because there was no audio, and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointedly refused to confirm those details. The assertion that Baghdadi died as a coward was, in any case, contradicted by the fact that rather than be captured, he blew himself up.

Well, now we do have a complete description of al-Baghdadi’s last moments. It seems that he fled into a tunnel while being chased by a dog. A very fierce, well-trained, and courageous dog, yes, but still a dog. Not a Terminator or a Predator. Al-Baghdadi dragged three children along with him, said to be his own. When he reached the dead end of the tunnel, he triggered the suicide vest he was wearing, killing, in a last act of nihilistic viciousness, all three of the children.

Whimpering And Crying And Screaming Shoshana Bryen

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/insight/

President Trump made good on a campaign promise with the U.S. Special Operations raid on Barisha, Syria that sent Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi into a dead-end tunnel, where he blew himself and three of his children to bits. In May 2019, Mr. Trump had announced “the end of the caliphate” in the territorial sense, but the Americans have now eliminated its theological master and terrorist dictator. Bravo to the brave, intrepid, and patriotic men and women who proved once again, as President George W. Bush said, that “you can run, but you can’t hide.”

Let’s clear the quick and stupid stuff first: No, this is not the end of ISIS ideology or terrorism spawned by it; no, it doesn’t fix the problem of Syria; no, it doesn’t make things right with the Kurds; no it doesn’t slow Iran’s desire for a hegemonic land bridge to the Mediterranean. And, yes, The Washington Post is an idiot.

Now, the implications. Most important for the future of the region and elsewhere, the ISIS concept of a land-based “caliphate” has probably expired. A retired naval commander notes:

It’s not 2013 anymore, when the progress of ISIS as a territory-gobbling guerrilla-terrorist force became evident. Their progress was defined by the Euphrates River, which they were following from the general area of Raqqa, from one side, and a general area between Ramadi and Haditha on the other, to link up between the Syria-Iraq border and Deir-ez-Zor. The fact that they were trying to consolidate and control that area was an arresting indication of their intentions, and then in 2014 they stormed into Mosul in the north.

The ISIS plan was different from that of al-Qaeda, which hid in caves in Afghanistan, as remote from its targets as it could be — and thus believed itself safe from retaliation. ISIS planted itself and its flag in the middle of Syria and Iraq: The benefit being oil fields with their revenue, land for training and operations, the ability to levy taxes on the population, and to show how a “real” Islamic civilization would work. Not too many people were impressed.

How The Obama Administration Set In Motion Democrats’ Coup Against Trump by Lee Smith

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/how-the-obama-administration-set-in-motion-democrats-coup-against-trump/

Rep. Devin Nunes realized the purpose of Obama’s dossier. ‘Devin figured out in December what was going on,’ says Langer. ‘It was an operation to bring down Trump.’

The following is an excerpt from Lee Smith’s book out October 29, “The Plot Against the President: The True Story of How Congressman Devin Nunes Uncovered the Biggest Political Scandal in U.S. History.”

AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed. It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.

Hillary Clinton’s communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.

Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump’s inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two weeks before.

Three Far-Left Economists Are Influencing The Way Young People View The Economy And Capitalism By Chrissy Clark

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/three-far-left-economists-are-influencing-the-way-young-people-view-the-economy-and-capitalism/

The three most influential economists in the 2020 election promulgate falsehoods about the American economy. Could this effect the way young people view economics for the rest of their lives? 

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are University of California, Berkeley economics professors and key players in designing economic policy for 2020 Democratic hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Saez and Zucman helped design Warren and Sanders’ wealth tax plans and have presented misleading calculations that claim “Medicare for All” would cut taxes for most Americans, despite Sanders admitting he would raise taxes on the middle class in order to achieve his “Medicare for All” plan.

Their work is based mostly on French economist Thomas Piketty. All three hold hard-left-wing values and push false bulk data on how high wealth and income inequality is.

The three most influential economists in the 2020 election promulgate falsehoods about the American economy. Could this affect the way young people view economics for the rest of their lives? The answer is yes.

CHARLOTTE’S NEWS WEB- JUDGE KAVANAUGH CAST DECISIVE VOTE-DURHAM INVESTIGATING THE INVESTIGATORS

Subject: Brett Kavanaugh Casts Deciding Vote, Ends 9th Circuit Court Reign of Terror

https://www.chicagodaily.pro/brett-kavanaugh-casts-deciding-vote-ends-9th-circuit-court-reign-of-terror-on-key-issue/

Prеѕіdеnt Trump juѕt got some grеаt nеwѕ аѕ thе Supreme Court, with Brеtt Kavanaugh саѕtіng thе deciding vоtе, juѕt ended the lіbеrаl 9th сіrсuіt соurt’ѕ rеіgn оf tеrrоr.

Trumр hаѕ соmрlаіnеd about thе runaway соurt аѕ іt has blocked mаnу of Trumр’ѕ асtіоnѕ іn the еxесutіvе branch.
Thе court wеnt аlоng раrtіѕаn lіnеѕ аnd саmе bасk with a 5-4 dесіѕіоn аnd a big vісtоrу fоr Trump.

AG Barr Says Durham ‘Making Progress’ in His Probe Into Origins of Spygate, “We’ll Let the Chips Fall Where They May” (VIDEO)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/ag-

The Future of the Federal Judiciary By Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-future-of-the-federal-judiciary

To understand better the future of the federal judiciary—and why it matters—we should first look to the past. Let’s consider where our judiciary began and how it has gotten to where it is today.

A

I begin where any judge should: with the text, of course. Article III of the United States Constitution established the federal courts and vested in them “the judicial Power of the United States.”[1] But, in contrast to the detail it provides for the powers vested in the other branches, the Constitution’s description of the judicial power effectively stops there. The Constitution identifies those categories of “Cases” and “Controversies” that will be subject to the judicial power of the United States.[2] But it says little about what such power is or how it ought to be exercised.

The concept was not novel to the framers of the Constitution, however. Rather, the general nature of the “judicial power” should have been well known to the founding generation from centuries of experience in England. This included, in the words of Professor Philip Hamburger, the central duty of English judges to “decide [cases] in accord with the law of the land.”[3] That the “judicial Power” was left largely undefined in the new Constitution may simply reflect the fact that its general meaning was already understood.[4]

The traditional conception of the judicial power embodied two related ideals. First, because judges would be deciding cases according to the law, they would not be deciding cases according to their personal values. The law alone was to supply the basis for decision. Legal historians have debated the degree to which this was true in England, disagreeing, for example, over the extent to which English judges would stray beyond the text of a law in the service of more ambiguous principles like equity.[5] But in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton defended the proposed Constitution on the very ground that an independent judiciary would help ensure that “nothing would be consulted [in the courts] but the constitution and the laws.”[6]

This critical facet of the judiciary is derived from the unique structure of our government.

FRANCIS MENTON: The Bidens: “Stone Cold Crooked” (3) — Any Remaining Doubt Should Be Investigated!

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=e18d8e30b7

On October 6, I put up two posts calling the Bidens, Joe and Hunter, “stone cold crooked.” The basis for the label was a series of factual assertions listed in the first of the posts, none of which had received any meaningful refutation in any source I could find. The short version is that it was essentially conceded by all that Hunter Biden had taken a position as director of a large Ukrainian gas company (Burisma) within days of his dad Vice President Joe getting appointed “point man” for U.S. diplomacy in that country; that Hunter did not have relevant business experience, and yet was paid $50,000 per month for the gig; that Joe had bragged (on a widely available video) of then using the leverage of threatening to withhold $1 billion of U.S. aid to get a prosecutor fired; and that the fired prosecutor had stated publicly that he was investigating Burisma. These are facts from which most reasonable people would easily conclude that something here stinks to high heaven. To reach that conclusion, the readily available facts are plenty of “evidence”; there is no need for any actual individual to step forward and admit that “yes, we paid Hunter to buy influence with his dad.” Of course that’s why they paid Hunter that kind of money.

Since the October 6 posts, facts keep coming out that, as far as I can see, only make the Bidens’ position more and more indefensible. Simultaneously, organs of the progressive press keep doubling down on the narrative that there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing of the Bidens in Ukraine, and any assertion to the contrary is a “conspiracy theory.”

Suppose that you are one of those hard-to-sway skeptics who think that there is not yet enough evidence to demonstrate the crookedness of the Bidens. The funny thing is that there is a place you could go to really nail this down: Ukraine! Shouldn’t somebody be doing that?

Let me list some facts that have at least come to my attention since those prior posts:

It looks like the amounts paid by Burisma to Hunter Biden and his business colleague Devon Archer were not $50,000 per month each, but rather $83,333 per month each. Reuters has that figure in an October 18 piece here, confirming Peter Schweizer’s assertion in this Fox News piece from September. $83,333 per month would come to a nice round $1 million per year.