Displaying the most recent of 91910 posts written by

Ruth King

The Netherlands: The Geert Wilders Show Trial Continues by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15553/geert-wilders-show-trial

The emails indicate that Prime Minister Mark Rutte himself was involved in the decision to prosecute Wilders.

“Minister Van der Steur has deliberately withheld those documents, as is apparent from these documents. Moreover, it appears that another Justice Minister, Minister Opstelten, lied…” — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020

“Mr. Presiding Judge, the Minister of Justice interfered in detail with my conviction. The documents even state that the Ministry of Justice instructed the public prosecutor — you will find the word ‘instruct’ in the documents….” — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020

“And every day that this trial continues and you do not punish the conspiring prosecution, and the Ministry of Justice for their lies and haggling with the principles of an independent, fair and balanced trial, by declaring them inadmissible, every day this trial continues is a black day in the history of Dutch justice.” — Geert Wilders, February 5, 2020

“In the Wilders case, we certainly do not have to rely on the judge to agree with Wilders and to reach the conclusion that there has been a political trial, which is therefore not legally valid…. Wilders case appears to have been pre-cooked in the cabinet itself…. [Prime Minister] Rutte himself was involved…. The lying and spinning must stop somewhere…. This rule of law, in which judges and prosecutors receive instructions by the politicians on how to act, is rotten from within.” – Joost Niemöller, Dutch Journalist, Ongehoordnederland.nl, February 5, 2020

Newly released documents show that senior members of the Dutch government — including the prime minister and two former justice ministers — applied political pressure on public prosecutors to indict Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV), for hate speech for comments he made about Islam and Moroccan immigrants.

The Left’s War on Free Speech: Battlefront Facebook To the Left, property is property, be it physical or intellectual, and confiscation is confiscation. They believe your property is theirs to confiscate. Thaddeus G. McCotter

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/07/the-lefts-war-on-free-speech-battlefront-facebook/

One would think an editor of an online magazine would be a staunch defender of free speech. One would be wrong.

Keith A. Spencer, Salon’s senior editor responsible for its science, technology, health, and the economy coverage, once more reveals the elitist Left’s abject contempt for your ability to think for yourself and make your own decisions.

Spencer has spewed a diatribe against Facebook with a bitterly ironic title: “How Facebook Misunderstands Free Speech: Freedom of Speech Doesn’t Matter Much If Only the Wealthy and Corporations Can Afford to Proselytize.”

What set Spencer’s First Amendment-protected cyber pen to screen was Facebook’s decision that it will not ban, censor, or fact-check political ads. Simon deemed it a “universally-reviled announcement,” because the likes of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and some leftist twitter trolls brandishing a hashtag like an epee—and, of course, Spencer—didn’t dig it. (One senses Spencer’s universe is rather finite.)

As the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, however, political speech is the most highly protected form of speech. So one suspects someone might welcome Facebook’s decision.

After all, what is there “universally” to revile about it? Per Facebook, the company made the decision because “we don’t believe it’s an appropriate role for us to referee political debates and prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny.”

In conjunction with its announcement, Facebook also unveiled improvements to its Ad Library, which will allow users to see who is paying for the ad; why the user was targeted for the ad; and what other ads the candidate or organization is promoting.

So what’s the problem? None for free citizens of our free republic who believe in free speech. But the problem for Spencer and his fellow leftists is the lack of control they would have over the free speech you receive and disseminate.

Trump’s New War On Wasteful Spending — An Advance Draft Of The President’s Budget To Congress (FY2021) Adam Andrzejewski

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/02/06/trumps-new-war-on-wa

President Donald Trump is taking action to declare war on waste.

This week, we reviewed an advance copy of the President’s Budget FY2021 that will be submitted to Congress on Monday, February 10th. The president’s budget includes a bold and detailed chapter on curbing waste, fraud, corruption, and taxpayer abuse.

… [a] bloated Federal Government, with duplicative programs and wasteful spending, remains a critical threat to America’s future.

President’s Budget FY2021 | Chapter: Stopping Wasteful And Unnecessary Spending, page 13

Our organization at OpenTheBooks.com has advocated these goals from the pages of The Wall Street Journal and USA Today. With the national debt standing at $23.2 trillion and annual budget deficits of over $1 trillion, we applaud the president for starting a war on waste.

Here are just three of the non-partisan reforms the president will highlight in his FY2021 budget to Congress:

1. End Improper Year-End Waste. The federal government’s use-it-or-lose-it year-end spending spree has been going on for years. In our recent oversight report, we found $97 billion spent by 67 federal agencies during the final month of fiscal year 2018. In the last week of the fiscal year, $53 billion in contracts went out the door – that’s one in every ten dollars spent in the entire year.

The Iowa App and the Clinton Cabal There’s money to be made in “progressive” politics. James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iowa-app-and-the-clinton-cabal-11581099603?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

What do you get when you combine Team Clinton’s business savvy with panicked Democrats eager to counter Donald Trump’s use of digital technology? Behold the Iowa Democratic Party’s caucus reporting app.

In competitive elections, you win some and you lose some. But if you can create recurring revenue streams from both the national and state offices of one of America’s two leading political parties, you can win every time! For Democratic tech vendors, the timing is perfect as party officials look to digital investments to counter a perceived Trump advantage.

People will continue to debate which Democrats deserve the most blame for their worst-in-the-nation caucus performance on Monday. The latest twist in the tale comes from Jason Clayworth, who reports in the Des Moines Register:

The reporting app that is getting a large share of the blame for the chaos surrounding Monday’s Democratic caucus results was working until the national party required the installation of a security patch less than 48 hours before the first-in-the-nation contest, a recent member of the Iowa Democratic Central Committee said Thursday.

As for the creators of the app, people outside of the political world may find it increasingly difficult to understand how they were ever hired. The company charged with building the essential technology has a short and unsuccessful history. But it does have valuable connections.

Michael Biesecker and Brian Slodysko reported for the Associated Press on Tuesday:

The little-known technology start-up under scrutiny after the meltdown of the Iowa Democratic caucuses on Monday was founded little more than a year ago by veterans of Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign who had presented themselves as gurus of campaigning in the digital era.

There were important themes in New Hampshire’s Democrat debate echo chamber By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/there_were_important_themes_in_new_hampshires_democrat_debate_echo_chamber.html

After the 2016 presidential race, Scott Adams said that reality isn’t fixed but is, instead, situational. Democrats and Republicans, he argued, were watching two different movies. One movie had Trump as an eccentric, America-loving man who would fix systemic problems; the other movie had Trump as Hitler and his concentration camps. Time would tell which movie was fiction and which was a documentary. (Hint: There are no concentration camps.)

At the Democrat debate in New Hampshire, it was clear that the Democrat candidates are watching a very different movie from the rest of America – and, more significantly, a movie different from the data. Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and Tom Steyer are not enjoying “morning in America.” Instead, they’re trapped in a nightmarish American landscape filled with poverty, hate, and despair.

The candidates live in an America with both endemic and epidemic poverty, all made worse under Trump. Except that employers created 225,000 new jobs in January alone — and real wages keep rising.

For Democrats, systemic racism is omnipresent. Reality, though, has Americans saying that race relations and minority status are better under Trump than under Obama.

Laughably, Elizabeth Warren, whose campaign witnessed a mass minority walkout in Nevada owing to racist working conditions, earnestly lectured the audience in New Hampshire about the problem of systemic racism. And Bernie, the old Marxist, insisted, “We have a racist society from top to bottom.”

The candidates were united in stating that Trump is an utterly evil, bizarre, dishonest, corrupt, racist blight on America, as proven in part by his saying mean things about Democrats. None were troubled by the irony of their making over-the-top attacks on Trump, while simultaneously claiming that Trump is mean and divisive.

Trump dismisses Alexander Vindman, Yevgeny Vindman, and Gordon Sondland By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/trump_dismisses_alexander_vindman_yevgeny_vindman_and_gordon_sondland.html

ABBA’s song “The Winner Takes It All” seems peculiarly appropriate for today’s news: “The winner takes it all, The loser’s standing small, Beside the victory, That’s [his] destiny.”

In this case, the winner was President Donald Trump, who emerged victorious from the Democrats’ ill-begotten impeachment debacle. The losers left standing small – and destined to be removed from their positions – were Alexander  Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny, both of whom are out at the National Security Council, and Ambassador (now former Ambassador) to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

In normal times, dismissing these men from their positions would make perfect sense. All three serve at the President’s pleasure. Under the Constitution, Trump is responsible for foreign policy and is Commander in Chief. In the former role, he has wide latitude to choose and dismiss ambassadors. In the latter role, thousands of years of military tradition hold that officers can be dismissed – or worse – for insubordination.

Sondland came across as merely weak, but Alexander Vindman is a genuine piece of work. The fact that his commanding officer has a constitutional right (and duty) to set foreign policy did not weigh at all with him. He felt that, as a decorated bureaucrat,  his opinion matter more.

When the president ignored Vindman’s opinion, the latter violated national security to complain about Trump’s chosen policy approach. (And note, please that he did not protect himself by being an official whistleblower. Instead, he whined to someone else.) Then, when called before Congress, the man who wears a suit to work showed up in his uniform, evidently trying to put the military’s imprimatur on his personal mutiny.

James Carville Warns Dems against ‘Distracting’ Voters with Open Borders Rhetoric: ‘They Don’t Care’ By Tobias Hoonhout

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/james-carville-warns-dems-against-ignoring-voters-with-distracting-rhetoric-on-open-borders-they-dont-care/

Longtime political strategist James Carville slammed the 2020 Democrats for tacking “off the damn radar screen” on issues, including “talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration,” and warned those still in the primary that such progressive advocacy “is not how you win a national election.”

Carville appeared on MSNBC in the wake of the Iowa caucuses debacle, saying Tuesday that “there’s only one moral imperative in this country right now, and that is to beat Donald Trump.”

“We don’t win elections because we talk about stuff that is not relevant,” he argued, and challenged Democrats to rise to the occasion.In an interview with Vox published Friday, Carville elaborated, and highlighted Democrats’ willingness to “get distracted” over far-left issues.

“We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking,” Carville stated. “You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party.”

Carville then explained his alternative as a “coherent, meaningful message that is relevant to people’s lives.” He implied that many of the talking points being peddled in the primary were largely promoted by Republicans to make the candidates “be sucked into every rabbit hole.”

Creepy Pete By Michael Brendan Dougherty

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-uncanny-candidate/

He may not be a robot, but there’s something uncanny about this candidate.

It has to be said: There is something plain amazing about Pete Buttigieg’s run for the presidency. His last election was for mayor of a very small city. No offense to South Bend, Ind., but being the nation’s 308th largest city is not something to brag about. In his last election before the Iowa caucus Buttigieg  won the support of less than 9,000 people. Pete Buttigieg did this by outlasting, out-fundraising, and out-debating former governors and a California senator, and lapping billionaire entrepreneurs. He beat a national front-runner and essentially tied the runner-up to the 2016 Democratic nomination. From unknown to serious contender for the presidency in less than a year: This is real Mr. Smith stuff, a tribute to the everyman nature of democracy.

To repeat myself, this is amazing, amazing stuff.

But also, it’s really creepy.

Right?

A few nights ago, the Iowa meltdown was just starting to dawn on us. Officially the Iowa Democrats were telling us that they had verified precisely zero percent of the votes.

And while we pondered that fact, this man, “Mayor Pete” emerged on cable news to dispel the utter confusion and uncertainty and declare himself the victor, based on his own tabulation. Think about that for a minute.

This is a man from nowhere who seems to have spent a great deal of time in the last few years managing his own Wikipedia page. His popularity is widely attributed to the work of a single media genius, Lis Smith. And as he was declaring himself the winner, a flurry of reports were being filed that there were some questionable financial connections between the developer of the Iowa vote-counting app and the Pete Buttigieg campaign.

Victors in Iowa, Sanders and Buttigieg Are Targets in Democratic Debate

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/democratic-debate-recap.html?emc=edit_na_20200207&ref=cta&nl=breaking-news&campaign_id=60&instance_id=0&segment_id=21094&user_id=2dfc89bd6c52e6103e5ac62f916a8f0d&regi_id=2636639

In the most contentious debate so far, Joseph R. Biden Jr. challenged Bernie Sanders over gun regulation, and Amy Klobuchar accused Pete Buttigieg of presenting himself as a “cool newcomer.”

The two victors in the Iowa caucuses, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., came under sharp and sustained criticism in a Democratic presidential debate on Friday, as their rivals tried to stop their momentum by assailing Mr. Sanders for his left-wing ideas and past opposition to gun control while targeting Mr. Buttigieg over his thin résumé and ties to big donors.

In the most contentious debate so far, taking place four days before the New Hampshire primary, the runners-up in Iowa charged at Mr. Sanders and Mr. Buttigieg, who appeared in the best position among the top candidates to win New Hampshire and perhaps take command of the race.

But their opponents, several of whom have significant advantages of their own, showed that they would not give way without a fight: Mr. Buttigieg especially came in for bruising treatment, drawing tough challenges from every other candidate onstage, including over his criminal-justice record as mayor and his failure so far to appeal to black and Latino voters.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seeking to recover from his limp finish in Iowa, raised the issue of Mr. Buttigieg’s lack of support among minorities in the opening moments of the debate, saying Mr. Buttigieg had not shown he could “get a broad scope of support.” He repeatedly alluded throughout the evening to his own base among African-Americans, especially in South Carolina, whose primary is this month and is considered a political firewall if his flagging campaign does not recover before then.But Mr. Buttigieg was not Mr. Biden’s only target: He also warned that nominating Mr. Sanders would taint down-ballot Democratic candidates with the label of socialism, and, in his most blunt attack so far on Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden rebuked him for having opposed gun control legislation in the 1990s. Mr. Sanders, who has long since disavowed that stance, called it a function of representing “a very, very rural state.”

The Political Genius Behind Trump’s SOTU Theatrics Karin McQuillan

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/06/the-political-genius-behind-trumps-sotu-theatrics/

“The ranks of President Trump’s supporters are swelling with former Democrats, with independents, with blacks and Hispanics, and with former nonvoters. He has earned their trust and their enthusiasm through bona fide real-life achievements. Trump has surprised everyone with his capabilities. He has unleashed the power of Americans to make our country great. We’ve never had a president like him.”
President Trump’s political genius was on display in his 2020 State of the Union address on Tuesday, as much as were his many achievements from his first three years.

As the president began to roll out his introductions of guests in the gallery, with each one, he was doing a three-for-one. No person with a heart remained dry-eyed. The stories and the dramas were electrifying moments for normal people watching and sharing the guests’ sorrow, joy, pride, hope, and desire for justice.

These guests also conveyed a political meaning—an in your face challenge to the Democrats on key policy conflicts such as homelessness, abortion, school choice, honoring those who sacrifice for our safety and freedom, borders, and sanctuary cities. Trump was going for the hot-button issues, not by debating, but by showing their human face.

Each real-time drama demonstrated how the president delivers for real people, individual people.

Lastly, the pathos associated with each guest was paired on camera with the stony-faced Democrats unwilling to applaud. They didn’t applaud for all the great statistics showing the lowest black unemployment and lowest black poverty in history. They didn’t applaud Charles McGee, the 100-year-old World War II veteran and Tuskegee airman who President Trump announced he had honored earlier in the day with a promotion to brigadier general.

Trump used the opportunity to display both his respect and his understanding that blacks have been treated as second class citizens in living memory, relating how after 130 combat missions, McGee returned home to “a country still struggling for civil rights.” Trump upped the emotional power by also introducing General McGee’s 13-year-old great-grandson, who aspires to be a Space Force officer, a new branch of the military President Trump established last year.

Democrats found nothing here to applaud. They want the race narrative to be 1619, America to be eternally damned as a foundationally racist country. Trump’s position, in contrast, raises everyone up: “From the pilgrims to our Founders, from the soldiers at Valley Forge to the marchers at Selma, and from President Lincoln to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Americans have always rejected limits on our children’s future.” Trump wants to remind black Americans that this inheritance of striving and overcoming belongs to them, too.

In Trump’s America, we are a land of heroes. We all unite in honoring and loving our common heroes. Whose team would you rather be on?

It was clear from the choice of guests that President Trump is going all out for the black vote, with personal stories of courage, success, and hopes answered. The first five featured guests were African American. The Democrats scowled through it all. It was shocking.

The very first was a previously homeless and drug-addled black veteran, now sober and working thanks to a President Trump supported enterprise zone, for which Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) got a special shout out and a close-up on camera. This was an unspoken challenge to the Democrats’ failed policies on the homeless.

The next was awesome because President Trump upped the ante and used a reality TV approach to create a dramatic moment in real-time. He introduced Janiyah Davis, an adorable fourth grader and her pretty single mom, desperate for a better school and better future for her daughter. Her hopes to get her daughter a good education in a charter school were blasted by Pennsylvania’s governor, a Democrat, who vetoed the expansion of school choice for 50,000 children.

President Trump came to the rescue. “Janiyah, I am pleased to inform you that your long wait is over. I can proudly announce tonight that an Opportunity Scholarship has become available, it is going to you, and you will soon be heading to the school of your choice!”

For me, the most moving real-time experience was seeing a young mother and her miracle 2-year-old child, born after only 21 weeks. Trump didn’t need to make a pro-life argument. He showed it to us in an unforgettable, living moment. In doing so, he changed that debate forever.

When the president announced he was asking Congress to ban late-term abortion, we weren’t listening to a debate. We were watching a human face, the face of the child’s mother—seeing intense emotions surge through her—surprise, gratitude, elation, love, vindication, triumph.

President Trump co-opted and promoted initiatives Democrats once claimed, making them his own: incarceration reform, family leave for men and women, infrastructure, high-speed internet for all communities, stamping out human trafficking. Democrats were unwilling to applaud for anything but the pork-barrel possibilities of infrastructure spending.

He also challenged weird and unpopular Democrat policies head-on, from socialized medicine to protecting criminal aliens. President Trump introduced a grieving Hispanic man who lost his beloved brother to a criminal alien released in sanctuary California. It was hard not to cry as the man struggled to hold back his tears. With that very human moment, Trump announced a game-changing tactic against Democrats’ sanctuaries for criminal aliens. “Senator Thom Tillis has introduced legislation to allow Americans like Jody to sue sanctuary cities and states when a loved one is hurt or killed as a result of these deadly policies.”

Another one of Trump’s signature end-runs around seemingly impregnable Democrat resistance.

Trump trolled the Democrats with fearless in-your-face conservative causes such as Second Amendment rights and prayer in the schools.

One of the greatest moments was bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom on broadcaster Rush Limbaugh.

Previous Republican presidents have never had the nerve to associate themselves with the brilliant, funny, accomplished, and cherished Limbaugh, for fear of the media blowback. President Trump walks right through those cowardly self-imposed limits and sets off fireworks.

Where Trump showed political genius over and over, the Democrats came across as political morons.

And so it continued all night, culminating in President Trump’s rousing love song to Americans and America:

Our ancestors built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making it greater than ever before! . . . We settled the new world, we built the modern world, and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God. America is the place where anything can happen! America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true! This Nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. . . . Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American Adventure, has only just begun!

It was at that moment that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stood, during the thunderous applause, and tore up President Trump’s speech. It was no fit of pique. She had obviously practiced and realized she had to divide the speech in segments and rip each one. Her gesture was disrespectful, petty and vindictive, but perhaps worst of all, ludicrous.

The ranks of President Trump’s supporters are swelling with former Democrats, with independents, with blacks and Hispanics, and with former nonvoters. He has earned their trust and their enthusiasm through bona fide real-life achievements. Trump has surprised everyone with his capabilities. He has unleashed the power of Americans to make our country great. We’ve never had a president like him.