Displaying the most recent of 90432 posts written by

Ruth King

CHARLOTTE’S NEWS WEB

President Trump and Cyrus the Great BY AMIL IMANI 

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2020/10/president-trump-and-cyrus-the-great

May 14, 1948, was the re-birth of Israel. The conditions surrounding Israel’s renewal was anything but simple. In fact, it was difficult. Israel’s journey from her early beginnings to the present has been fraught with great suffering.

It is a tribute to the indomitable will and spirit of the Jewish people that they persisted in their valiant struggle to re-gather again in the land of their birth.

The Left’s ‘Mostly Peaceful’ Revolution/Coup William L. Gensert

http://stupidfrogs.org/articles/the_lefts_mostly_peaceful_revolution_coup.html

Since the advent of the Trump presidency, the left engaged their greatest minds in planning the “Russia Hoax Coup” and then the impeachment farce. Having failed miserably at both, they are now carrying out an information operation to sell maundering Joe Biden as inevitable in his attempt to win the coming Presidential Election.

The Deep State and the Abuse of Power: Sydney Williams

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

“The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”James Madison (1751-1836)

We should forever be thankful for the brave and wise men who fought our revolution and created our government, between the years 1775 and 1789. They defeated the world’s foremost military power. Their experience with Parliament and the King made them wary of governmental power. They knew enough about human nature to recognize that power was an aphrodisiac. In February 1775, Alexander Hamilton wrote in “A Farmer Refuted:” “A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.” They recognized that warning applied to them – and their political heirs.

Later, looking back on those years, Madison, in the same speech quoted in the rubric above, spoke to the risks of different forms of government – that monarchies can become despotic and aristocracies may sacrifice the rights and welfare of the many to the demands of the few. In republics, he added, “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.” It was because of the failings and risks of other forms of government, along with the fallibility of man, that the Founders created a government based on a written Constitution, which emphasized the natural rights of individuals that must be protected. It clearly stated that power would be diffused through three equal branches, with the legislative branch being bicameral – a lower chamber reflecting the population of the nation and a Senate representing each state equally. It further stated that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it, are reserved for the States or the people. Freedom for the individual came foremost; governmental abuse of power was the great internal risk.

In 1789, the federal bureaucracy consisted of employees in three departments – State, Treasury and War. Today, the Federal Register lists 454 departments, agencies and sub-agencies.  Excluding members of the military, approximately three million people are employed in the federal government, plus about four million federal government contract employees – the fastest growing segment of the federal workforce.

The Pence-Harris debate and a divided America The truth is that under normal circumstances, vice-presidential debates barely elicit a yawn, let alone pique public curiosity. By Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-pence-harris-debate-and-a-divided-america-645095

The debate between US Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic challenger Kamala Harris on Wednesday night turned out to be a whole different ballgame from the Donald Trump-Joe Biden face-off that took place eight days earlier.

Unlike Trump, Pence is soft-spoken and unflappable. In contrast to Biden, Harris possesses the confidence of an attractive woman combined with the fangs of a pit-bull prosecutor and the complacency of a left-winger encouraged by the latest polls in her party’s favor.Another shift was the identity of the moderator. Fox News’s Chris Wallace had lost his cool during the September 29 presidential debate. Though his questions were intelligent, his intolerance with Trump was glaring.

USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, who moderated the Pence-Harris match, was calm and collected. But her questions belied her political slant toward Harris.

None of the above, however, explains why millions of Americans and others around the world tuned in and stuck around to watch the 90-minute contest, broadcast on all major channels and live-streamed on websites of major news outlets. It is particularly odd, considering that many viewers voiced their boredom on social media, while others spent the duration joking about the fly that landed on Pence’s head.

Is There a Doctor in the House?

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-house/91291/

Too bad there’s not a 25th Amendment-type clause in the Constitution granting to the cabinet the power to remove from office the Speaker of the House. That’s our reaction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she is going to lead tomorrow in the House a discussion in respect of using the 25th Amendment against President Trump. She’s upset that he called off negotiations with her over a Covid relief bill.

It seems the speaker thinks that might have been a reaction to the steroid the president is taking for his case of the coronavirus. The Daily Mail is reporting that some doctors are concerned that it can cause insomnia, mania, mood swings, and rage. Then again, Congress itself has been known to cause in ordinary taxpayers insomnia, mania, mood swings, and rage. So this could yet turn out to be tomorrow quite a discussion.

Plus, one doesn’t have to be taking a steroid to see the logic of Mr. Trump calling off negotiations with the Speaker and her camarilla. Just read the Wall Street Journal, which issues what is, clinically speaking, the sanest editorial page in the Milky Way. It noted that the talks from which Mr. Trump withdrew were over a “ransom demand” for a $2 trillion “blowout” in new covid relief spending. Mrs. Pelosi would take nothing less.

That’s just crazy. Particularly since in order to get the $2 trillion, the Congress would have to borrow the money from the Chinese communists or other lenders. Or just have the Federal Reserve create it out of pixels (it would be borrowing 2 trillion dollars whose value has not been set by, in the Congress, the only body empowered to regulate the value of the dollar). Put that, as they say, in your 25th Amendment and smoke it.

Biden Can’t Have It Both Ways on the Virus By Kyle Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-cant-have-it-both-ways-on-the-virus/

When your campaign media arm is also known as “the media,” not only may you enjoy being asked almost nothing but friendly questions, but you may also find that internally inconsistent assertions go unchallenged. Consider the Biden position on coronavirus: He would be tougher on the virus and also easier on the economy at the same time. How’s that?

Think of coronavirus response as a seesaw: If you stomp down on the economic end, and grind it into the ground, the other end — public safety — rises high. At least in theory. We can’t actually be certain how effective the lockdowns have been in containing the virus.

But here’s something we do know: You can’t have both ends of the seesaw high up in the air at the same time. Crush the economy, maybe there’s a big uptick in safety. Loosen up the economy and allow people to mingle in public spaces, and there is a corresponding rise in risk. What is the proper balance of health vs. jobs? No one can really say. If we welded shut the door of every American dwelling, we’d probably reduce the transmission of the virus. And as soon as the doors opened, the virus would start spreading again.

Abetted by the media that shows no interest whatsoever in calling out the logical inconsistencies of Democrats, Biden contends both that he would have been quicker on the draw to prevent the spread of the virus and that he would have magically saved everyone’s job at the same time.

Why Won’t the Media Listen to These Scientists? Prize-winning biologists vs. compelling narratives. By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-wont-the-media-listen-to-these-scientists-11602013456?st=eb16j3x84nc3q0n&reflink=article_copyURL_share

This week dozens of esteemed medical experts with blue-chip academic credentials published a warning about the destructive policies adopted to address Covid-19. Since the Sunday publication of this “Great Barrington Declaration” more than a thousand biological scientists and more than 1,500 medical practitioners have added their names to the petition. Yet it’s been almost entirely ignored by the media outlets that spend much of their days presenting themselves as obedient to science.

Maybe this is because the accomplished group of scientists behind the declaration is refusing to obey political narratives. According to the petition:

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

The scientists go on to note that the poor are “disproportionately harmed” by current policies and that for children, “COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” They add that the best approach “is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

This means that those “who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” including attending schools, going to restaurants, participating in sports and even gathering at public events. Meanwhile attention should be focused on protecting those most at risk. According to the scientists.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: JANE FONDA

https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/biden-surrogate-jane-fonda-calls-covid-gods-gift-to-the-left/

“I just think that COVID is God’s gift to the Left,” Fonda said. “That’s a terrible thing to say. I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the band-aid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average people and working people in this country.”

“What a great gift, what a tremendous opportunity, we are so lucky, we have to use it with every ounce of intelligence and courage and wherewithal we have,” she added.

Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands – Again by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16598/netherlands-free-speech-geert-wilders

“[T]his is not just about my freedom of speech, but about everyone’s…” — Geert Wilders.

“But for all of us it was absolutely obvious that we all wanted to live in a society where people can…. present their views… and not to be punished for this. It is called the town square test, where every person can go in the center of the town, say what he or she thinks, what she believes, to insist on their right to promote these views, and will not be arrested and will not be punished for this. And if that is possible, that is a free society. If it is not permitted it is a fear society. And there is nothing in between.” — Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident, November 30, 2004.

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10 of which states the following: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”

In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10 protects not only “the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected.”

What seems offensive is often extremely subjective…. Speech with which everyone agrees does not need protection.

In the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects the political speech of political actors and political campaigns, it is difficult to see how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be limited in accordance with article 10 (2). Wilders did not incite to violence, nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted as relevant to limiting free speech.

A Dutch appeals court recently upheld the conviction of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for supposedly insulting Moroccans in comments he made at an election rally in 2014. At the same time, however, the appeals court overturned Wilders’ conviction for inciting hatred or discrimination against Moroccans.

At an election rally in The Hague in March 2014, as leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom), reportedly the country’s most popular opposition party today, Wilders asked those present, whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd chanted “fewer, fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

Wilders was prosecuted and convicted in December 2016 on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.” Wilders did not receive any punishment then, nor will he now: Judge Jan Maarten Reinking stated, “The accused has already for years paid a high price for expressing his opinion,” referring to the fact that Wilders has lived under constant police protection for more than a decade and still receives constant threats. Most recently, Al Qaeda issued a threat against Geert Wilders, among others. “Terrible news,” Wilders called the threat.

Afghanistan: Is the U.S. Breaking Its Promise to Women? by Charlotte M. Ponticelli and Shea Garrison

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16611/afghanistan-women

That the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February promised a U.S. withdrawal of troops by May 2021, but did not address women’s rights, may signal a bad start.

Over the past 19 years and three administrations, U.S. support has made an undeniably significant contribution to improving the lives of Afghan women and girls. There is abundant evidence across the board — in women’s political participation, economic opportunities, education, and health.

Despite the “lessons learned” of the Promote boondoggle, the fact that women have gained a stronger voice and attained the remarkable progress they did, was due in large part to programs supported by the United States and our allies.

A great example is how Afghanistan has been able to rebuild an education system that had basically stopped functioning. In 2001, about 900,000 students were in primary school — almost all of them male. Today, more than 8 million students are in school, and though more must be done, nearly 40 percent of them are girls. The statistics tell the story. According to leading economist Larry Summers, educating girls “may well be the highest return investment available in the developing world.”

Some might regard these women as “exceptions to the rule” but in reality they are exceptional women who — thanks to US support — have worked long and hard to change the rules. And when they move forward, the rest of the world moves with them.

Continued U.S. investment in Afghan women and their families is the right and strategic thing to do — not just for Afghanistan but for our own national interests, those of our new allies in the region and for all of the Free World.

While the world watches the Afghan government peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar, the Trump Administration continues to roll out its signature initiative to advance the role of women in peace negotiations. Ironically, for the U.S. government and its noteworthy agenda on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS), Afghanistan is where, as they say, the rubber meets the road. The world will know how serious the U.S. is about implementing WPS when we see how Afghan women fare in the coming months. That the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February promised a U.S. withdrawal of troops by May 2021, but did not address women’s rights, may signal a bad start.

The Chinese Gutting of America By Curtis Ellis

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/07/the-chinese-gutting-of-america/

Just as China has gutted America’s manufacturing base, it has gutted most of our nation’s foundational institutions.

When President Trump imposed import duties on a wide range of Chinese goods, we discovered just how reliant our nation had become on the communist People’s Republic of China for a wide array of manufactured and finished goods.  

A parade of American businesses petitioned the U.S. government to exempt some 13,000 different items from tariffs.

We are by now familiar with the empty factories across the country that once turned out auto parts, appliances, and consumer electronics, all shuttered by cheap imports from China. 

But who knew that the officially atheist nation whose regime persecutes people of faith prints most of the Bibles we read at home and in church? Our worship services depend on China.

Or that China produces the specialized drill bits used to extract oil and gas from the ground? Our energy industries depend on China.

And of course, the Chinese virus revealed just how dependent our health care had become on China.

But more than just these hard industries have been hollowed out. We see the same pattern repeated in academia, finance, media and government.

We have long regarded our institutions of higher education as the crown jewels of America, shrines of academic freedom and free inquiry as well as technical expertise. When they returned home, the story was that students from across the globe would carry the bedrock Western values inculcated by our universities and liberalize the world.