Displaying the most recent of 90433 posts written by

Ruth King

Saudi Slavery An Islamically-sanctioned barbarity continues. Hugh Fitzgerald

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/slavery-persists-saudi-arabia-hugh-fitzgerald/

As is well known, slavery was formally abolished in Saudi Arabia as late as 1962, and then only after terrific pressure had been applied to the Saudis by Western governments. And today, when we speak of slavery in the Muslim world, we think of Mauritania (with 600,000 slaves), as the report in the past hour discussed, Niger (600,000 slaves), Mali (200,000 slaves), and Libya (where slave markets have opened in nine sites during the last two years). Most of us assume that in Saudi Arabia, slavery is no longer tolerated.

But most of us are wrong.

Slavery may have been formally abolished, but the cruel and savage treatment of foreign domestic workers, their inability to free themselves from arduous work conditions because their employers keep their passports and other documents, amount to slavery in all but name.

A report on one group of domestic slaves — Vietnamese women — by reporter Yen Duong, who interviewed former workers who had made it back to Vietnam, was published last year in Al Jazeera here:

Overworked, abused, hungry: Vietnamese domestic workers in Saudi Arabia.

Women say they are forced to work at least 18 hours a day, denied food, assaulted and refused the right to return home.

Pham Thi Dao, 46, says she worked more than 18 hours a day and was given the same one meal to live on – a slice of lamb and plain rice.

Dao, 46, was a domestic worker in Saudi Arabia for more than seven months until she returned to Vietnam in April.

“I worked from 5am until 1am in the morning, and was allowed to eat once at 1pm,” Dao told Al Jazeera of her experience in the port city of Yanbu. “It was the same every day – a slice of lamb and a plate of plain rice. After nearly two months, I was like a mad person.”

According to statistics from Vietnam’s labor ministry, there are currently 20,000 Vietnamese workers in the kingdom, with nearly 7,000 working as domestic staff for Saudi families…

The Socialists vs. Billionaires Democrat Primary Bloomberg joining the primaries from hell will make them even worse. Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/socialists-vs-billionaires-democrat-primary-daniel-greenfield/

Joe Biden is running out of money.

He blew too much cash on private jets while blowing away debating opponents with his confused mumbling and bleeding eye. Now Joe’s down to the single digit millions, while Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are in the double millions. Unless Joe can wangle a job on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, he’s not going to be able to afford private jets or a political campaign.

Kamala Harris is cutting staff and scaling back her campaign. Julian Castro is supporting his staff as they look for new jobs in a successful campaign. Too bad there aren’t many of those left. The only candidates still polling as if they’re in the running are Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg, in a distant fourth place, buoyed by donations from vegan restaurateurs who don’t care if he actually wins or not.

Between them, Sanders and Warren command about 40% of the Democrat vote. Biden’s dying campaign has been shrinking from a third to around a quarter. And it’s largely dependent on black voters associating him with Obama. A project that’s gotten zero help from the actual Obama.

It’s time for the one thing the Dem dogfight desperately needs. More terrible candidates.

As money becomes the central factor, it’s the candidates with a fanatical following, the two radical socialists, Warren and Sanders, and the candidates with money to burn, who can stay in the race.

Tom Steyer, an eco-billionaire, bought his way into the primary, onto the debate stage, and was even accused of trying to buy endorsements. He’s blown through $47 million without batting an eye. With $1.6 billion to play with, Tom can keep this up a whole lot longer than Joe Biden can stay awake.

Why Does The Media Prop Up Failed Democratic Candidates Like Stacey Abrams? November 7, 2019 By Chrissy Clark

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/07/why-does-the-media-prop-up-failed-democratic-candidates-like-stacey-abrams/

Stacey Abrams, the failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate from Georgia, told a University of Iowa audience she would be happy to run as a vice presidential candidate.

Abrams ended the rumors she was asked to run with Joe Biden if he was the nominee, but, according to the Daily Iowan, Abrams said she would be happy to be the running mate of DNC’s nominee, whoever the candidate is.

“When I got the question [from reporters] I was, myself, contemplating my next steps… I’m not in the primary, but you can run as second in the general election, and I am happy to do so with the nominee. That is my answer,” Abrams said

The New York Times, Washington Post, POLITICO, and The Hill have all reported on Abrams desire to be Vice President. The Washington Post gave Abrams a glowing review, saying, despite her failed candidacy she is a rising star in the Democratic party.

Why do mainstream media outlets continually prop up failed candidates? They used similar tactics when “rising star” Beto O’Rourke announced his presidential bid this year.

In January, media outlets raved about O’Rourke’s candidacy and gawked over his Vanity Fair cover. He was being propped up by the media and polled at 8.5 percent nationally. Now, the mainstream media and voters realize the only place ‘Born to Run’ Beto is going, is home.

O’Rourke has dropped out of the presidential race and was polling at a measly 2 percent by the end. The strategy of propping up an entire campaign around media attention leads candidates to flopping hard. Could an Abrams run follow this same pattern? After all, the two “rising stars” have a lot in common.

GOOD NEWS IN KENTUCKY

Kentucky’s new star By Frank Friday

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/kentuckys_new_star.html

President Trump said it best Monday night about Kentucky’s new Republican Attorney General, Daniel Cameron, the brilliant young black lawyer: “a star is born.”  Republicans wound up winning every Kentucky election except governor, with Cameron on the road to being a national figure as a fresh young advocate for traditional conservative values and commonsense law enforcement.

While Gov. Bevin was not re-elected, it certainly was not in any way the fault of President Trump, who brought out a record Kentucky turnout for Republicans in odd-number-year elections.  I thought this May, Gov. Bevin, despite all his amateur mistakes (he had moved here only in the late 1990s and entered politics just in 2014), could win if he focused the election on his Biden-like, corrupt opponent.  Instead, he continued to needlessly offend people, engaging all summer in an idiotic feud with the lieutenant governor he dumped from the ticket, costing him many deep red counties, where she was a Tea Party favorite.

Anyway, it is interesting that despite his youth, Daniel Cameron was picked out as a star in the making in college, where he played football for the Cards, by Sen. McConnell, and then by President Trump, who met him a year ago.  He has the natural talent for the consensus-building you need in politics to succeed — something the outgoing Matt Bevin never mastered.

Vindman, Zaid, Schiff: Foul birds of an ugly feather By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/vindman_zaid_schiff_foul_birds_of_an_ugly_feather.html

Retired lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman was reportedly reprimanded by a superior when it became known that he repeatedly made fun of Americans; American culture; and, as he said, “Americans not being educated or worldly.”  He did this in front of foreign diplomats, constantly.  No wonder he remained an Obama loyalist and has tried to undercut President Trump.  After all, Obama considered himself first and foremost “a citizen of the world” and did not find anything exceptional in America in and of itself.  President Trump loves America and is representative of a patriotic heartland mindset.  After all, Trump believes in America first. 

Vindman is a trans-nationalist, a globalist, someone who feels superior to most Americans.  I’ve run into many people who think like Vindman.  Perhaps Vindman is an acquaintance of Mark Zaid, the Long Island lawyer who boasted to friends about how he would help create a coup to bring down President Trump.  Zaid, like Vindman, has no respect for the American people.  He would negate the will of the American people, the majority of electoral votes that were cast for Donald J. Trump, and, through a coup, remove the president elected by the people. 

Perhaps Zaid knows Adam Schiff, who is trying to do the same thing.  Adam Schiff made impeachment rules that would deny the American people, as represented by their Republican congressmen, equal participation in these hearings.  Schiff wants to overturn the American people’s election of Donald Trump.  All three men are working with Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

Schiff, Zaid, and Vindman are three principals in the illegal coup unfolding in front of our very eyes.  Schiff, Zaid, and Vindman all have a condescending view of the American people, our laws, and our culture.  They are not heroes.  Woe to a country where men such as these attain power and influence.

The Democrats and CAIR By Eileen F. Toplansky

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/the_democrats_and_cair.html

In 2018, Democratic lawmakers and a few Republicans openly supported the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), congratulating the organization on its 24th year of operation.  Furthermore, sixteen likely Democrat presidential candidates are endorsing CAIR.  For instance, “Elizabeth Warren sent in a video message threatening to cut off aid to Israel unless it surrenders to Islamic terrorists. Then she promised to divide Jerusalem, turning half the ancient holy city into a killing ground for the murderous terrorists already occupying Gaza and portions of the West Bank.”

Thus, the majority of the 2020 Democrat presidential field have aligned with CAIR, an anti-American and anti-Israel organization.  Moreover, it is now patently clear that the “Democratic party’s celebration of Linda Sarsour… exposes the poison” that has enveloped the party.

Consequently, there are representatives of the United States Congress who are openly applauding an “entity of the Muslim Brotherhood linked to pro-Hamas operations in the U.S.” 

From its inception, CAIR has sought to “portray itself as a moderate, mainstream organization,” but nothing could be farther from the truth.  Instead it “promotes a radical Islamic vision demonstrated by its co-founder Omar Ahmad” who has said

Islam ‘isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran… should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.’ In a similar spirit, co-founder Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter in 1993: ‘I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.’ In 2003 Hooper stated that if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, they will likely seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, which they deem superior to man-made law.

Ihsan Bagby, a former board member of CAIR, believes that Muslims “can never be full citizens of [America]… because there  is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.” Islamic supremacism as espoused by this group is taught in many American mosques which teach hatred of Jews and Christians. In fact, “Tashbih Sayyed of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance (CDT) called CAIR ‘the most accomplished fifth column’ in the United States since its desire is to  ‘…spread Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook.'”

DOJ Admits in Michael Flynn Case That FBI ‘Mistakenly Identified’ Peter Strzok Notes By Tobias Hoonhout

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-admits-in-michael-flynn-case-that-fbi-mistakenly-identified-peter-strzok-notes/

The attorneys prosecuting former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were forced to admit in a Tuesday letter to Flynn’s legal defense that the notes which formed the official document describing Flynn’s January 2017 interview were not written by agent Peter Strzok, as they’ve maintained throughout the case.

“We were informed that the notes we had identified as Peter Strzok’s, were actually the other agent’s notes (see Surreply, Exhibit 1), and what we had identified as the other agent’s notes were in fact Strzok’s notes (see Surreply, Exibit 2)” the letter to Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell reads.

The FBI’s admission calls into further question the credibility of the case and of former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who told the FBI that his partner Joe Pientka was “primarily responsible for taking notes and writing the FD-302.” The case against Flynn, who entered a guilty plea for lying to the FBI in December 2017, centers around the 302 form, which per Bureau protocol, stands in place of a transcript, as the FBI does not record its interviews.

History Is Clear: Socialism Isn’t the Cure. So Why Do Millennials Like It? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/history-is-clear-socialism-isnt-the-cure-so-why-do-millennials-like-it/

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Venezuela are unfree, poor and failed states. Baathism — a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism — ruined the postwar Middle East.

The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.

In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.

So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders — Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?

Why do polls show that a majority of American millennials have a favorable view of socialism?

There are lots of catalysts for the new socialism.

Massive immigration is changing the demography of the United States. The number of foreign-born U.S. residents and their children has been estimated at almost 60 million, or about 1 in 5 U.S. residents. Some 27 percent of California residents were born outside of America.

The Court of Justice of the European Union Limits Free Speech by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15139/european-court-free-speech

“This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world…. The ruling also means that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.” — Thomas Hughes, executive director of ARTICLE 19, a non-profit organization that works on “protecting the right to freedom of expression around the world,” October 3, 2019.

The judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union… appears to give EU member states unprecedented power to determine public discourse online — to determine what citizens can and cannot read…. [T]he prospects now look even bleaker for the future of free speech in Europe.

On October 3, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in a judgment that Facebook can be ordered by national courts of EU member states to remove defamatory material worldwide:

“EU law does not preclude a host provider such as Facebook from being ordered to remove identical and, in certain circumstances, equivalent comments previously declared to be illegal. In addition, EU law does not preclude such an injunction from producing effects worldwide, within the framework of the relevant international law which it is for Member States to take into account.”

The ruling came after the Austrian politician Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, chairman of Die Grünen (The Greens) party, sued Facebook Ireland in the Austrian courts. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

“She [Glawischnig-Piesczek] is seeking an order that Facebook Ireland remove a comment published by a user on that social network harmful to her reputation, and allegations which were identical and/or of an equivalent content.

“The Facebook user in question had shared on that user’s personal page an article from the Austrian online news magazine oe24.at entitled ‘Greens: Minimum income for refugees should stay’. That had the effect of generating on that page a ‘thumbnail’ of the original site, containing the title and a brief summary of the article, and a photograph of Ms Glawischnig-Piesczek. That user also published, in connection with that article, a comment which the Austrian courts found to be harmful to the reputation of Ms Glawischnig-Piesczek, and which insulted and defamed her. This post could be accessed by any Facebook user.”

The judgment has brought concern among free speech organizations. Thomas Hughes, the executive director of ARTICLE 19, a non-profit organization that works on “protecting the right to freedom of expression around the world,” said:

“This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world.

Defending Israel’s justice minister Amir Ohana His detractors have attempted to discredit him in a host of ways, particularly by insinuating that he has no special skills beyond being Bibi’s pet and sycophant. By Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Defending-Israels-justice-min

Justice Minister Amir Ohana must have known his address to the Knesset on Wednesday was going to unleash the rabid dogs that have been hounding him for the past six months. After all, ever since he was appointed by Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu to the coveted – albeit interim – cabinet post, Ohana’s criticism of the Israeli judiciary in general, and controversial comments about the courts in particular, have aroused the wrath of the self-righteous.

Rather than recoil, however – as a lawyer with blossoming political ambitions might be expected to do – Ohana has remained firm in and vocal about his convictions. This is in spite of the fact that in the immediate aftermath of each of his ostensibly scandalous statements, his detractors have attempted to discredit him in a host of ways, particularly by insinuating that he has no special skills beyond being Bibi’s pet and sycophant.

It’s a ridiculous claim, of course. But it’s a handy one for those who virulently oppose the Nation-State Law that Ohana was instrumental in drafting, for example, (not to mention his support for a bill that would grant a sitting prime minister – in this case, Netanyahu, who is under threat of indictment – immunity from prosecution).

Though it’s true that Ohana is a Netanyahu loyalist, he has been one since long before he entered the Knesset. Furthermore, his continued backing of the PM in the face of the investigations against him has to do with his professional assessment that the cases are legally flimsy, at best, which they are.