Displaying the most recent of 90908 posts written by

Ruth King

JOHN BOLTIN’….MARK STEYN

https://www.steynonline.com/9731/john-boltin

On the eve of the annual 9/11 observances, America’s National Security Advisor John Bolton was either fired (per Trump) or resigned (per Bolton). The dispute is being portrayed as one between a Bush-era neocon and an “America First” Trump. But that is something of an over-simplification. As I wrote upon Bolton’s appointment a year and a half ago:

Bolton is viewed with suspicion as a ‘neocon’, which is not a term of much practical use these days. But then so was his predecessor – H R McMaster. So the substitution might be of no more significance than a neocon whom Trump likes the company of taking the job of a neocon whom Trump finds a bit of a cold fish. There may be a little more to it than that: McMaster was complacent, and conventional to a fault; Bolton is a realist, and harder-headed about the illusions of mankind. Beyond that, McMaster belonged to the group of foreign-policy panjandrums who expected Trump to move towards them; Bolton has moved towards Trump.

And, having moved towards Trump, he came to have ever more reservations about what he found there. Whatever the President now says, at the time Bolton’s appointment was a Trump choice reflecting a desire to regain control of an administration in danger of being neutered by the GOP establishment:

At this stage the Gullible Old Pussies of the Republican Party are pretty much openly advertising that giving them control of the House, the Senate and the White House is the equivalent of giving Yosemite Sam three sticks of dynamite to shove down his pants – with the additional nicety that this time round they’re actively flipping the finger at their president’s bedrock issue. I reiterate the point I first made on the radio a year ago: On January 20th 2017 Trump should have taken all those showboating showbiz no-shows at face value and held a businesslike inauguration at the southern border while laying the first brick. The brick remains unlaid – not because Vicente Fox refuses to ‘pay for Trump’s f**kin’ wall’ but because Paul Ryan does.

WILL THERE ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1176045/parliament-protest-labour-mp-song-red-flag-prorogue-parliament-brexit-house-of-commons

Marxist takeover: ‘Disgusting’ Labour sing ‘Red Flag’ anthem in Commons in ‘defiant burst’

LABOUR MPs burst into a chorus of its socialist “Red Flag” anthem in the House of Commons last night, in scenes never before seen in Parliament.

By LUKE HAWKER

Angry at the prorogation of Parliament, Labour MPs chanted and jeered their Conservative colleagues as they took part in the traditional suspension ceremony. After shouting ‘shame on you’ to those in the prorogation procession, Labour MPs refused to leave the Commons chamber and started singing the 19th century socialist song. The Marxist anthem, largely abandoned by the Labour Party in the 1990s, has been given a resurgence under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

The timing of the song, sung in the middle of one of Britain’s biggest political crisis’ to engulf the country since the civil war caused outrage.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, fuelled the huge backlash after sharing a video of the chorus on social media.

He wrote: “The closing down of Parliament by Johnson & the Tories provoked anger in the Commons but also in the final moments of this Parliamentary session a defiant burst of singing of the ‘Red Flag’ by Labour MPs.

“We will never let this extreme right wing Tory sect silence our democracy.”

Tory MP Vicky Ford furiously attacked Labour MPs for their actions.

The Chelmsford MP said: “Trying to get my head around witnessing the sight of Labour MPs singing the red flag in the chamber of the House of Commons at 1.30 in the morning … after refusing to vote for a General Election … Goodness!”

Her comments were echoed by furious voters who branded the move by Labour “disgusting”.

Ninth Circuit Lifts Nationwide Injunction, Allows Trump’s Asylum Crackdown to Proceed By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ninth-circuit-lifts-nationwide-injunction-allows-trumps-asylum-crackdown-to-proceed/

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has temporarily lifted a nationwide injunction against President Trump’s restrictive asylum policy, allowing the administration to once again turn away asylum-seekers who travel through a so-called safe third country on their way to the U.S.

The Ninth Circuit granted the administration’s request for a stay late Tuesday night, just one day after San Francisco-based U.S. District Court judge Jon Tigar issued for the second time a nationwide injunction blocking the administration from implementing its new asylum policy. The court’s ruling narrows the scope of the injunction so that the administration is only blocked from implementing its safe-third-country policy within the court’s jurisdiction, which includes California and Arizona.

Under the new asylum policy, which was announced in July, migrants who travel through a safe third country such as Mexico on their way to the U.S. will be denied asylum if they haven’t previously applied for refugee status in the country that country. The policy is now in effect in New Mexico and Texas, since those states fall outside of the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

Soon after the policy was announced, Tigar, an Obama appointee, issued a nationwide injunction blocking its implementation, but was rebuffed by the Ninth Circuit, which narrowed the scope of the injunction. Citing new evidence about the policy’s alleged harm to migrants, Tigar reissued the nationwide injunction Monday, only to be overruled once again.

“The court recognized there is grave danger facing asylum-seekers along the entire stretch of the southern border,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement issued in response to Tigar’s Monday ruling.

The White House, meanwhile, criticized Tigar on Tuesday for seeking to unilaterally control federal immigration policy from the bench.

1

“Immigration and border security policy cannot be run by any single district court judge who decides to issue a nationwide injunction,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement. “This ruling is a gift to human smugglers and traffickers and undermines the rule of law. We previously asked the Supreme Court to set aside the district court’s injunction in its entirety, our request remains pending with the Court, and we look forward to it acting on our request.”

The administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to allow the policy to remain in effect nationwide until a the protracted court battle concludes.

The Need to Clarify and Strengthen Our Relationship with Taiwan By Therese Shaheen

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/to-pressure-china-we-must-clarify-and-strengthen-our-relationship-with-taiwan/

The imperiled island democracy has become more isolated, and its relationship with the U.S. has grown ill-defined. Trump can and should change that.

Whatever other legacies President Trump leaves after his time in office, he will be remembered as a figure who realigned the GOP by bringing many of its core tenets into question. The party is no longer reliably supportive of multilateral trade agreements and opposed to tariffs. It is no longer interested in reforming entitlements, or in balancing the federal budget. It is no longer a proponent of the overseas deployment of U.S. forces for the sake of maintaining stability in unstable places. None of these shifts are necessarily permanent. To be sure, there will be reassessments of all of them after the Trump presidency, as the party decides what it wants to be going forward.

Here’s another shift, one I hope the party holds firm to over time: For the first time since the Nixon presidency, the GOP is no longer willing to accommodate Beijing. Republicans no longer see China as a benign emerging power to be nurtured as it merges into the society of nations. In action if not in fact, the Trump administration has redefined China as an economic and military adversary, and a human-rights abuser of massive and systematic proportions.

This is an overdue and welcome shift. There are practical actions that the administration can take to ensure that it lasts beyond Trump’s time in office as something more than a bargaining tactic in trade-deal negotiations. An important one is rethinking the role the U.S. has played as the handmaiden in Beijing’s decades-long global isolation of Taiwan.

Israel’s Sovereignty Claims Over The Jordan Valley Are Legitimate Erielle Davidson

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/11/israels-sovereignty-claims-over-the-jordan-valley-are-legitimate/

A nation cannot annex land over which it already has sovereign claims.
September 11, 2019 By Erielle Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement on Tuesday regarding his plan to formalize Israeli sovereignty in Jordan Valley has sent shockwaves across the world. However, much of the outrage has stemmed from a misunderstanding about Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria and historical claims over the region. Even the standard newspaper accounts of Netanyahu’s plans as envisioning the “annexation” of territory is inaccurate. 

Netanyahu never said “annexation.” Instead, he spoke of “applying sovereignty” to refer to Israel’s territorial claims over the Jordan Valley. International outlets, particularly left-leaning ones, have referred to Netanyahu’s campaign promise as a promise to annex land. But there is a reason for the PM’s careful choice of wording, and for its mistranslation and misrepresentation abroad.

A nation cannot annex land over which it already has sovereign claims. Netanyahu purposefully referred to the process as an application of Israeli sovereignty, abstaining from using the Hebrew word for annexation, sipuach. As Eugene Kontorovich, director of the International Law Department at the Jerusalem-based Kohelet Policy Forum, noted, Netanyahu’s proclamation is about “translating long-standing Israeli consensus into action.”

Warren Mimics Bernie’s Promotion Of Anti-Semite Linda Sarsour To Campaign Surrogate By Warren Henry

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/11/warren-mimics-bernies-promotion-anti-semite-linda-sarsour-campaign-surrogate/

Given Linda Sarsour’s record, her claim that she supports Bernie Sanders because of rising anti-Semitism in America is irony thick enough to cut with a chainsaw.

Personnel is policy, or so the saying goes. So it is troubling that the two leading left-wing presidential candidates—Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—are empowering people who at best hate Israel and support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement intended to destroy the Jewish state.

Over the weekend, Sanders tweeted a video identifying Linda Sarsour as a campaign surrogate:

Bernie Sanders

✔ @BernieSanders

“I would be so proud to win, but also to make history and elect the first Jewish American president this country has ever seen and for his name to be Bernard Sanders.” –@lsarsour

Sarsour’s record on Israel and Jews is no secret. She supports a one-state solution to Palestinian attacks on Israel that would effectively destroy the Jewish state. In 2012, she tweeted that “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” She has claimed Zionists cannot be feminists. Sarsour supports the BDS campaign which, as Anti-Defamation League director Jonathan Greenblatt notes, “encourages and spreads anti-Semitism.”

In 2017, she literally embraced Rasmea Odeh, a convicted terrorist who killed two Hebrew University students in 1969. At last year’s convention of the Islamic Society of North America, she accused the Israeli police and military of training American police to kill blacks, and opposed humanizing Israelis.

Two names who would give Trump an all-star security team after Bolton By John Solomon

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/460829-two-names-who-would-give-trump-an-all-star-security-team-after-bolton

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump knows exactly what he wants when it comes to foreign policy. He wants a clear definition of the American strategic interest across the globe and a commitment that war is always a tool of last resort. 

His stubborn loyalty to those two objectives sometimes is derided as nationalistic and non-interventionist by his critics.

But for those of us old enough to remember, those principles used to be endemic to U.S. foreign policy for decades, until Bill Clinton and Barack Obama took the Iranian appeasement bait and George W. Bush mispositioned America as the unrelenting, trigger-happy global cop.

The murky foreign policies of the past two decades moved America away from defining its strategic interest on each global issue to a more populist, hair-trigger approach, giving us such blunders as Bush’s bogus Iraq WMD claim and Obama’s feckless erosion of a red line in Syria.

With John Bolton’s departure as the president’s national security adviser on Tuesday, President Trump has the rare opportunity to restore the American strategic interest to foreign policy and create a clear global doctrine to govern for years to come.

But it will require something he hasn’t always done well — picking the right people.

Never Forget: “Ecumenical” 9/11 Al-Azhar Imam of Manhattan’s Largest Islamic Center Was Viscerally Anti-American and Rife With Islamic Jew-Hatred Andrew Bostom

https://www.andrewbostom.org/2019/09/never-forget-ecumenical-9-11-al-azhar-imam-of-manhattans-largest-islamic-center-was-viscerally-anti-american-and-rife-with-islamic-jew-hatred/

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented the apogee of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Egyptian Sheikh Muhammad Al-Gameia, the Al-Azhar University representative in the U.S., and Imam of the Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque of New York City, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, provided a very concrete and disturbing example of the authoritative Al-Azhar Islamic mindset exported to America.

Within three days of the 9/11 jihad carnage al-Gameia, “known for his moderate views,” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 25, 2001; p. 6]  sermonized “in English calling for peace, healing, and love among people of all religions.” [Tampa Bay Times Oct. 24, 2001; p. 20] The good Sheikh struck an entirely different chord when he was interviewed for an Al-Azhar University website, on October 4, 2001. Sheikh Gameia returned to Egypt after September 11, 2001 alleging, without any substantiation, that he was being “harassed.” Gameia’s interview (original Arabic; extracts translated here) was rife with conspiratorial Islamic antisemitism, which riveted upon his invocation of the central Koranic motifs of Jew-hatred, while equating Jews and Zionists. Al-Azhar’s representative to the U.S. melded this sacralized anti-Jewish bigotry to virulent calumnies against Americans, and threats to the U.S.—witless “dupes” of the Zionist Jews.

On the solemn 18th anniversary of the calamitous 9/11 jihad terror depredations, Gameia’s behaviors and remarks stand as a lasting, res ipsa loquitur testament to the hateful duplicity inculcated by authoritative, mainstream, institutional Islam.

Calumnies against Americans, and threats to the U.S.—witless “dupes” of the Zionist Jews

The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change II – Debunking the Bunk – hoax 46 by Linda Goudsmit

 http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/23198/the-humanitarian-hoax-of-climate-change-ii

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com

http://lindagoudsmit.com

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The humanitarian hoax of climate change is so enormous and far-reaching that one article on the subject is simply not enough.

My first article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 4, was published two years ago on 7.21.2017. The second, The Riddle of Climate Change, published on 2.27.19 continued the discussion. Now it is necessary to explore the ever-expanding climate change hoax and examine the progress the hucksters have made in advance of the pivotal 2020 elections.

Let’s begin with huckster-in-chief Barack Obama and his recent staggeringly hypocritical purchase of a 15 million dollar waterfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. Why would Obama purchase a waterfront mansion doomed to sink underwater in twelve years? He wouldn’t. Let’s review.

In Obama’s first inaugural address 1.20.09 he pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.” In his second inaugural address 1.21.13 he affirmed climate change saying: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagreed with his assessment saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

The overwhelming judgment of science?? Why did Obama ignore the damning 2009 Climategate scandal, NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s 2010 book, and later the 2014 Senate testimony of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore? Let’s find out.

“Climategate is the scandal that erupted on 11.19.09 when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the global warming theory. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history.

Brexit and the Deficiencies of Parliament by Malcolm Lowe

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14849/brexit-parliament

What has characterized the last year of UK politics is that individual MPs in the various parties have begun to seek the same freedom of action as US Members of Congress. So far, however, they are both fearful of suffering the same fate as the 21 banned by Johnson and remain inexperienced in the exercise of such freedom.

Johnson now has two alternatives. One is to reinstate the 21. His defenders claim that this would encourage similar defections in the future. The other alternative is to stick to his unpopular decision and risk being dismissed himself by his party. Either way, the unwitting heritage of Johnson may include the end of the tyrannical powers of the UK PM.

The Bank of England in its latest report estimates that the consequences of no-deal on October 31 will be less dire than it thought a year ago, but dire they will be: GDP will shrink by 5.5%, inflation will rise from 2% to over 5%, unemployment will “surge to 7% rather than 7.5%, up from a current 45-year low of 3.8%.” In short, a very healthy economy will turn into a problematic economy. The most worrying problem, however, is that the Bank is engaged in guesswork about an event without precedent. If things turn out much better or much worse than estimated, nobody should be surprised that the Bank got it wrong.

It is remarkable that the UK Parliament has spent almost a year of debates about the Brexit deal agreed by Theresa May’s government and the European Union. Indeed, about one small detail of that deal. We shall briefly describe what that detail is before explaining that the inordinate resulting delay reflects deep and longstanding dysfunction in the whole parliamentary system of the UK.

The deal consisted of two documents, the Withdrawal Agreement (WA, 585 pages) and the Framework for the Future Relationship (FFR, 26 pages). Most of the WA consists of regulations obviously needed for winding up UK participation in EU institutions, settling mutual debts, safeguarding the interests of UK citizens resident in the EU and vice versa, and the like. Even Boris Johnson regards all that as basically good and necessary.

The bone of contention is rather the so-called “Backstop” or (properly) the “Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.” This is a set of procedures designed to preserve the current “soft border” between the two parts of Ireland until the Protocol can be replaced via the negotiations that will turn the FFR from a shortlist of intentions into a permanent relationship between the UK and the EU. At 174 pages, it is nearly a third of the WA. Yet the real contention is just about Article 20 of the Protocol – a mere page and a half out of a total of over 600 pages.