Displaying the most recent of 90433 posts written by

Ruth King

China’s Holocaust of Children By Kyle Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/chinas-holocaust-of-children/

The ‘one-child policy’ involved slaughtering hundreds of millions of babies.

Using the aggressively bland term “one-child policy” is a bit like saying that 1942 Germany had restrictions on Jews. You may never have thought much about how a huge nation enforces a limit of one baby per family, but the horrifying details of China’s Holocaust of children emerge in a powerful documentary told by a woman whose family was one of the countless millions who suffered.

A girl born in 1985 in Jiangxi Province was named Nanfu, or man-pillar. The Wang family, like nearly all others in rural China, desperately wanted a boy, and when one didn’t arrive, her parents gave her the planned boy’s name anyway. After she was born, village authorities threatened to sterilize her mother, who wanted to try again for a boy, but instead struck a compromise. Some rural families were allowed a second child if the parents spaced the children apart by five years. While the mother was in labor, Nanfu Wang says in her documentary One Child Nation (streaming on Amazon Prime Video), her grandmother put a basket in the room and announced, “If it’s another girl, we’ll put her in the basket and leave her in the street.” Nanfu’s brother arrived instead.

It was no idle threat. As Wang discovers, this sort of thing happened all the time. And when you left your baby girl (it was nearly always a girl) in a market, or by the side of the road, here’s what happened: Nothing. No takers. Girls had no value whatsoever. When Wang’s uncle had a daughter, her mother recalls, he wanted to try again for the son. So the family climbed over mountains in the dark to take the infant to a market, where they left her on a meat counter with the equivalent of $20 in her clothes. The family would go back to check on her progress, of which there was none. Soon the baby was covered with mosquito bites. “For two days and two nights she was there,” recalls Wang’s mother. “She eventually died. Then we buried her.” Oh.

Chinese officials would use a variety of pressures to prevent women from giving birth. Sometimes sterilization would be presented simply as an option; you were free to refuse, but then the authorities would burn your house down or steal your pig. Other times women underwent sterilization by force, or suffered as their eight- and nine-month-old fetuses were aborted. A single “family planning” official recalls carrying out an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 sterilizations and abortions, sometimes inducing delivery and then killing the newborn. “I’d do over 20 [sterilizations and abortions] a day,” she recalls now. “Sterilization takes ten minutes.” In many cases the women had been abducted: “Tied up and dragged to us like pigs,” recalls another woman who served as a “family-planning official,” who says, “I initially thought forcing abortions was an atrocity.” But a Party official persuaded her that the more challenging a job was, the more willing she should be to take it on.” “Sometimes pregnant women ran away. We had to chase after them.” One woman “took off all her clothes and ran away naked.” But the “population war” had to be fought: “Our country prevented 338 million births,” notes a propaganda video. The word “prevent” is doing a lot of work there.

Amb. Taylor’s Awkward Silence in Response to a Question About Hunter Biden Was Very Telling By Matt Margolis

https://pjmedia.com/trending/amb-taylors-awkward-silence-in-response-to-a-question-about-hunter-biden-was-very-telling/

During Wednesday’s impeachment hearings, Steve Castor, House Intelligence Committee counsel for the minority, asked Ambassador Taylor a rather simple question about Hunter Biden and his position at Burisma, that he couldn’t (or perhaps refused) to answer, resulting in perhaps the most awkward silence I’ve ever seen in such a hearing.

CASTOR: Ambassador Taylor, do you know whether Hunter Biden offers anything other than the fact that his dad’s the former vice president

AMB. TAYLOR: I don’t—

CASTOR: Or at the time was the vice president.

AMB. TAYLOR: I have no knowledge of Hunter Biden—

CASTOR: But you agree it raises questions?

AMB. TAYLOR: (five seconds of silence)

Here’s video of the exchange.

Mandatory Shortages By John Stossel

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/mandatory-shortages/

Governments create problems. Then they complain about them.

“A public health crisis exists,” says Kentucky’s government, citing a report that found “a shortage of ambulance providers.”

Local TV stations report on “people waiting hours for medical transportation.”

“Six-year-old Kyler Truesdell fell off his motorcycle,” reported Channel 12 news. “The local hospital told (his mother) he should be transported to Cincinnati Children’s to check for internal injuries.” But there was no ambulance available. Kyler had to wait two hours.

Yet Kyler’s cousin, Hannah Howe, runs an ambulance service in Ohio, just a few minutes away. “We would’ve (taken him) for free,” she says in my new video. “But it would’ve been illegal.”

It would be illegal because of something called certificate of need (CON) laws.

Kentucky and three other states require businesses to get a CON certificate before they are allowed to run an ambulance service. Certificates go only to businesses that bureaucrats deem “necessary.”

CON laws are supposed to prevent “oversupply” of essential services like, well, ambulances. If there are “too many” ambulance companies, some might cut corners or go out of business. Then patients would suffer, say the bureaucrats.

Of course, Kentucky patients already suffer, waiting.

It raises the question: If there’s demand, then who are politicians to say that a business is unnecessary?

Phillip Truesdell, Hannah’s father, often takes patients to hospitals in Kentucky, “I drop them off (but) I can’t go back and get them!” he told me. “Who gives the big man the right to say, ‘You can’t work here’?!”

ABC and CBS Collusion May Be a Smoking Gun with Real Victims Adam Mill

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/12/abc-and-cbs-collusion-may-be-a-smoking-gun-with-real-victims/

Authorities have a duty to investigate whether the two networks conspired to keep from the public information that parents and authorities could have used to protect children from sexual predators.

Did ABC and CBS engage in an unlawful restraint of trade by colluding to fire a “whistleblower”? After somebody smuggled footage of a candid video of Amy Robach bitterly complaining about ABC spiking a story on Jeffery Epstein, it appears the network went on a frantic search to find and punish the whistleblower.

Based on the public information about the story, it also appears that ABC and CBS may have colluded to punish the whistleblower. If true, not only is this a violation of journalistic principles, but the companies also should face scrutiny as to whether they may have violated federal law.

According to the video recently released by Project Veritas, ABC may have a secret video of an interview with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex slaves. Epstein, who died in jail under suspicious circumstances in August, in is the notorious architect of a shocking operation to press children into prostitution for the gratification of degenerate rich people. Many believe that Epstein received protection by blackmailing clients.

ABC and CBS are supposed to be competitors. But when ABC thought it identified the “whistleblower” who took the footage of Robach’s shocking confession, network officials realized that its competitor, CBS, employed the person suspected of leaking the video. (It turns out ABC was incorrect about the person’s identity, but that is immaterial to this story.)

ABC couldn’t fire somebody who didn’t work for the network. Instead, executives made some sort of arrangement with CBS. When CBS agreed to fire the employee, that may have been an overt act to further a restraint of trade in the supposedly competitive news business, limiting consumer access to future stories.

Liberal Media Scream: Jane Fonda wants ‘Nuremberg trials’ for energy executives by Paul Bedard

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/liberal-media-scream-jane-fonda-wants-nuremberg-trials-for-energy-executives

This week’s Liberal Media Scream features activist and Hollywood star Jane Fonda, who has been spending a lot of time in Washington recently protesting on climate change and even going to jail for her efforts.

Now, she wants energy executives and their political allies to be treated like Nazis and face a “Nuremberg” style trial similar to German dictator Adolf Hitler’s henchmen, who were often given the death penalty at the post-World War II trials.

She appeared on the debut of The Impeachment Show on the Viceland, where she said that there’s “literally a ticking time bomb over everything” because of climate change. She claimed “our government is being ruled by fossil fuel” and so “democracy is teetering on the edge of collapse.”

Charging that the “fossil fuel industry” has caused wars that have killed many Americans, she also charged oil executives and enabling politicians “should all be tried for crimes against humanity and nature.” Host Michael Moynihan said, “So, you want to see sort of a Nuremberg trial for climate criminals?” to which Fonda responded, “Yeah, I would.”

A Jewish Democratic Congressman Called Me a Nazi Collaborator by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15158/alan-dershowitz-steve-cohen

For [Congressman Steve] Cohen [D-TN], the issues surrounding impeachment are one-sidedly simple, and there is no reason for anyone to express or listen to opposing points of view. Therein lies the true road to tyranny: when government officials like Cohen berate people for expressing contrary points of view, free speech and dissent are chilled.

Congressmen Steve Cohen, who has a long history of one-sided condemnation of Israel, recently called me a Nazi collaborator on MSNBC as the show’s host Alex Witt sat silently by. Here is the context: several days earlier, I had been on a Fox News show discussing impeachment when the host and another panelist began attacking Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, who was preparing to testify the next day regarding U.S. President Donald Trump’s call with Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of the Ukraine. When the attack on Vindman occurred, I had never heard of him and had no idea why he was being vilified. Since I had no knowledge to offer, I remained silent about Vindman and continued to discuss the subject at hand, namely impeachment.

As soon as I learned who Vindman was, I did three things: I tweeted a strong statement criticizing the accusation against Vindman and describing him as a patriot who served his country; I went on TV and publicly apologized for my silence, explaining that I knew nothing about the issue at the time; I then wrote an op-ed declaring Vindman to be a patriot and calling on Republicans to “stop their smears.”

It was several days after I offered these explanations and apologies that Cohen described the attack on Vindman and said that “Dershowitz sat there listening like a quisling.” He said nothing about my subsequent statements.

For those too young to remember who Vidkun Quisling was, let me remind you. Quisling was a Nazi collaborator and strong supporter of Hitler. The name quisling has become a descriptive noun meaning traitor, collaborator and Nazi. I assume that congressman Cohen knew all this when he threw that despicable term at me.

The crowning irony is that Cohen was criticizing me for remaining silent while someone else wrongfully called Lt. Col. Vindman a traitor. Yet, Cohen himself was prepared to call me — a patriotic American and a liberal Democrat — a quisling. The further irony is that Cohen went on to bemoan how divided we have become as a nation: “we are separated tremendously.” Of course, we are separated, and Congressman Cohen is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The 4,006 Palestinians the Europeans Have Not Heard Of by Bassam Tawil

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15157/palestinians-human-rights-syria

The Palestinians held in Syrian prisons are probably not overly concerned about whether or not a bottle of wine made by Jews is labeled by the Europeans.

The Europeans, however, who never stop moralizing to the rest of the world, take a different view: they seem to perceive settlement products as more dangerous than the repressive and brutal measures taken by the Syrian authorities against Palestinians.

The Palestinian Authority and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, are meanwhile too busy hunting down critics on Facebook to pay any heed to the Palestinians in Syria.

Much better, from their point of view, for the international community to spend its time disgorging hate against Israel and Jews; after all, at least that serves the Palestinians in their real project of delegitimizing, and destroying, the region’s only free and democratic state.

As all eyes are turned on the latest tensions in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian terror groups have been firing rockets at Israel in retaliation for the Israeli killing of Islamic Jihad commander Bahaa Abu al-Ata, the number of Palestinians killed in Syria since the civil war began there in 2011 has risen to 4,006.

The plight of the Palestinians in Syria, however, is of no concern to Palestinian leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, who continue to be obsessed with destroying Israel. The international community, including the United Nations and human rights organizations, are also clearly not interested in the suffering of Palestinians in Syria — or in any other Arab country.

The 4,006 Palestinians killed in Syria were not targeted by Israel; evidently that is reason enough for the international community and the UN to look the other way.

Is Iran Winning or Losing? An outcome dependent on Israel. Caroline Glick

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/iran-winning-or-losing-caroline-glick/

There’s an old Jewish joke where a young man walks up to his grandfather man and asks him how he’s doing.

The grandfather answers, “In a word, good.”

“And in two words?” the grandson presses.

“Not good,” his grandfather replies.

The events of the week call the joke to mind in relation to Iran and its war against Israel and the United States.

Sunday, a crowd of thousands gathered outside the US embassy building in Tehran and chanted, “Death to America, Death to Israel.” The Iranians sounded their customary death chants to mark the 40th anniversary of the seizure of the US embassy and the hostage crisis it precipitated.

Sunday’s demonstration was the opening shot in a week of hostile actions by Iran. On Monday and Tuesday, senior Iranian officials announced they are abandoning key limitations set on their nuclear activities by the nuclear deal they concluded with the Obama administration, the EU, Russia and France in 2015. Monday Iran announced it expanding its uranium enrichment at the Natanz nuclear installation with advanced IR-6 centrifuges, and that it is doubling the number of IR-6 centrifuges presently being used.

Tuesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran is renewing enrichment activities at its Fordo nuclear installation, built inside of a mountain outside Qom. According to Rouhani, beginning Wednesday Iran would begin enriching uranium at Fordo to five percent by injecting its centrifuges with uranium gas.

Many commentators responded to Iran’s announcements by declaring that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy for scaling back Iranian aggression and thwarting its nuclear program has failed. President Donald Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, which is enthusiastically supported by Israel and the Sunni Arab states is comprised of continuously escalating US economic sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are reinforced by US-supported military operations by US allies – primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia — against Iranian forces and Iranian proxy forces in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

Never Again is Now, in Europe and America A new documentary tells tough truths about anti-Semitism. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/never-again-now-europe-and-america-daniel-greenfield/

“Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!”

When Evelyn Markus made the difficult decision to leave Amsterdam, the “world’s most liberal city”, where she had grown up and come to the United States, she thought she was leaving hate behind.

Her reasons for leaving a country where her ancestors had lived for four centuries, and her continuing journey through history and hatred, is at the heart of her new documentary film, Never Again is Now.

Evelyn’s Amsterdam is a city of contrasts filled with the familiar sights of flowers and canals, and the shocking, but alsoincreasingly familiar sights of angry mobs chanting support for the Islamic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and howling out their hatred for the Jews. It’s this everyday horror that drove her out of the Netherlands, and that drives Never Again is Now’scollision of history and current events.

For Evelyn Markus, the daughter of Dutch Jews who survived the Holocaust, the “world’s most liberal city” stopped being all that liberal. The death of her parents and the death of the ‘liberal’ city where she had grown up became intertwined as a journey of the mind and the soul.

That journey, in which Evelyn pored through her parents’ letters and their stories of the Holocaust even as she confronted the rebirth of popular anti-Semitism, eventually became Never Again is Now, a documentary about the past, present and future of Jewish life, and its evil twin, anti-Semitism.

Evelyn’s journey in Never Again is Now takes us into history, not just in the past, but in its endurance and emergence today, in the heroic, as she meets Frank Towers, the 90-year-old veteran who helped save her family, in Nashville at the last reunion of the 30th Infantry Veterans of World War II, and in the confrontation with evil, encountering an anti-Semitic mob chanting, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.”

Evelyn’s parents had fallen in love under the shadow of the Nazi occupation of Holland, and survived, reunited and married, only to have their daughter flee the rise of that same hatred, this time not under the Swastika, but the red banners of the Left and the green banners of Islam. A generation after her parents had built a life together, Evelyn observed a new anti-Semitism coming from the “political Left.”

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’ By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-vs-the-policy-community/

We resolve policy disputes by elections, not impeachments.

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.”

Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page House deposition transcript. I couldn’t agree more, though, with our experts’ apparent consensus that Moscow is bad, should be challenged on various fronts, and would best be seen as the incorrigible rival it is, not the potential strategic partner some wish it to be — the “some” here known to include the president. Ukraine, for all its deep flaws, is valuable to us as a check on Russia’s aggression, another conclusion about which the president is skeptical.

That is, on the critical matter of America’s interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin’s anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions.

But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.

And that’s where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him — not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts — in charge of making policy. If we’re to remain a constitutional republic, that’s how it has to stay.