Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

Citizenship and American Identity If we extend the designation to everyone in the world, how can we still be a country? Geoffrey M. Vaughan

https://www.city-journal.org/american-citizenship

Civis Romanus sum: “I am a Roman citizen!” Two thousand years ago, those words protected one throughout the Roman Empire, imposing strict limits on the punishments that public authorities might inflict. Today, we’re seeing a powerful conflict between the national and the foreign in the Western hemisphere. At the United States southern border, a father and daughter lost their lives attempting to cross the Rio Grande. Along the shores of Italy and Spain, meantime, boatloads of migrants risk their lives sailing across the Mediterranean. 

More than 1 billion people would improve their lives by moving to a relatively small number of countries—namely, those of Western Europe and North America. Polls confirm the desire of citizens of poor countries to move to the West. These people do not merely seek material advantage, though that’s certainly a factor. They also want protection from violent elements of their society, from criminals, and even from their own governments. In many parts of the world, declaring one’s citizenship offers no such protection. Chinese citizenship doesn’t save the Uighurs, for example, from the abuses they have suffered. Even Rome’s decaying republic and corrupt empire had better protections for citizens than do some contemporary countries.

Citizenship, like monetary currency, operates on a principle of trust. Currencies are valued highly if one can be assured that others will exchange goods and services for them at face value. Similarly, advanced countries acknowledge one another’s passports virtually as tickets to entry. Citizenship is treasured when one’s rights can be assumed—but worthless when one cannot leave a country or reenter it, when a government doesn’t protect property or individuals, or when one must take desperate measures to escape.

Just as government policies can undermine currencies, so, too, can they degrade citizenship. Cancelling debt is one way to devalue a currency; printing too much money is another. The Democratic presidential hopefuls seem set on similar policies for American citizenship. Most have, in one form or another, suggested decriminalizing illegal entry to the United States. “That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” said Jeh Johnson, former head of Homeland Security under Barack Obama. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates have also endorsed providing illegal immigrants medical insurance, even as millions of American citizens lack coverage. With these measures in place, what would remain of American citizenship?

There Is No Epidemic of Racist Police Shootings By Heather Mac Donald

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/A new study debunks a common myth.

The Democratic presidential candidates have revived the anti-police rhetoric of the Obama years. Joe Biden’s criminal-justice plan promises that after his policing reforms, black mothers and fathers will no longer have to fear when their children “walk[] the streets of America” — the threat allegedly coming from cops, not gangbangers. President Barack Obama likewise claimed during the memorial for five Dallas police officers killed by a Black Lives Matter–inspired assassin in July 2016 that black parents were right to fear that their child could be killed by a police officer whenever he “walks out the door.” South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has said that police shootings of black men won’t be solved “until we move policing out from the shadow of systemic racism.” Beto O’Rourke claims that the police shoot blacks “solely based on the color of their skin.”

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings, which holds that white officers are engaged in an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black men. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer. In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found.

The authors, faculty at Michigan State University and the University of Maryland at College Park, created a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 from more than 650 police departments. Fifty-five percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Between 90 and 95 percent of the civilians shot by officers in 2015 were attacking police or other citizens; 90 percent were armed with a weapon. So-called threat-misperception shootings, in which an officer shoots an unarmed civilian after mistaking a cellphone, say, for a gun, were rare.

Al Sharpton Is Not a Civil-Rights Hero By Kyle Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/al-sharpton-is-not-a-civil-rights-hero/

He’s made a career of inciting violence and vomiting lies. And Democrats have cheered him on.

Imagine David Duke being a regular, esteemed guest and former honored host on Fox News Channel. Imagine every Republican presidential candidate scrambling to praise him whenever he’s in the news. Imagine David Duke being given a prime speaking slot at the Republican National Convention or President Trump welcoming him to the White House and openly soliciting his support. Imagine Duke appearing on White House visitor logs more than 70 times during Trump’s administration.

Imagine all of this and you’ll have some idea of how the right and even, I think, the center of American political thought reacts to seeing Al Sharpton continue to be cosseted by the Democratic party and its allies in the media. Sharpton should long ago have been ruled out of bounds.

Employing the morally disastrous logic that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, the Democrats have allowed President Trump to troll them into extolling Sharpton. Trump is incorrect about many things, but he fairly described Sharpton as a racist. Sharpton is a “con man, a troublemaker, always looking for a score,” Trump tweeted. “Hates Whites & Cops!” That’s a lot closer to the truth than the framing of Democrats, who bent the knee to Sharpton as though he were some sort of civil-rights hero rather than a huckster.

Kamala Harris
✔ @KamalaHarris .@TheRevAl has spent his life fighting for what’s right and working to improve our nation, even in the face of hate. It’s shameful, yet unsurprising that Trump would continue to attack those who have done so much for our country.
 
Joe Biden✔ @JoeBiden.@TheRevAl is a champion in the fight for civil rights. The fact that President Trump continues to use the power of the presidency to unleash racist attacks on the people he serves is despicable. This hate has no place in our country. It’s beneath the dignity of the office.
 
Elizabeth Warren✔ @ewarren@TheRevAl has dedicated his life to the fight for justice for all. No amount of racist tweets from the man in the White House will erase that—and we must not let them divide us. I stand with my friend Al Sharpton in calling out these ongoing attacks on people of color.

Sharpton holds the position of America’s Senior Spokesman for Civil Rights only because it’s been some time since he’s done anything so egregiously contemptible that it made the front page; the Left simply assumes short memories have sanitized Sharpton’s reputation. I almost wrote “inflammatory reputation,” but that word might be too literal given the arson attack that followed one of his most notorious hate campaigns.

Compared To The Democrats, Donald Trump Is Moderate When it comes to policy, the president makes Democrats look like a gaggle of extremists David Harsanyi

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/31/donald-trump-the-moderate/

Once you strip away all the hysteria and madness surrounding the Donald Trump presidency, you’re left with a policy agenda of a populist, big-government Republican. Whether or not you have a moral or personal case against Trump himself, the president’s stated policy positions fall well within the contours of traditional right-left politics.

Can the same be said of Democrats? I’m sorry, but across-the-board tax cuts, notwithstanding the panic-stricken reaction, aren’t particularly radical. Every Republican president going back to Warren Harding has passed some kind of rate reduction. Nor is Trump’s stated position on constrained foreign entanglement, which is popular with large factions of both parties. Trump’s anti-Iran and pro-Israel posture are long-standing GOP positions — and before President Barack Obama, bipartisan consensus.

Higher tariffs, which many of us believe are destructive and counterproductive, have been part of our economic debate forever. We shouldn’t forget, either, that while reflexive anti-Trumpism may have transformed a number of Democrats into temporary free marketers, most progressives share Trump’s protectionist instincts. Hillary, for instance, was compelled to change her long-standing position on both NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership during 2016 campaign to appeal to her left flank. Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s new trade proposal not only makes Trump look like Milton Friedman, it allows environmental groups and unions to dictate terms.

Debt? Sadly, no one cares.

At CNN’s primary debate in Detroit, presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg cautioned that no matter which policies Democrats embrace, Republicans will still call them “crazy socialists.” Until recently, there was no need for any qualifier, because Democrats feigned outrage at the mere mention of socialism. But now that Democrats are openly arguing for collectivist policies — one of their leading candidates is, in fact, a socialist who could easily have been the party’s nominee for the presidency in 2016 — sane socialism is, apparently, OK.

“Indispensable Netanyahu” by David Goldman

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/07/article/indispensable-netanyahu/

The Israeli prime minister’s diplomatic role has overriding importance for American and world security

After 13 years in office, Benjamin Netanyahu has served long enough to have rankled every Israeli I know. He faces a difficult election on September 17, after failing to form a coalition government following a national election earlier this year. As an American, I avoid taking a view on Israeli politics, but this is a special situation in which Netanyahu’s diplomatic role has overriding importance for American and world security. I have argued since 2009 that the United States has a narrow but important set of common interests with Russia in the Middle East. Thanks in large part to Netanyahu, security cooperation seems effective.

No other world leader could have convened, as Netanyahu did June 25, a meeting of Russia’s national security adviser Nicolai Petrushev and American NSA John Bolton. Speaking in Jerusalem, Petrushev declared, “We pay special attention to ensuring Israel’s security,” calling it “a special interest of ours because here in Israel live a little less than about two million of our countrymen.” He added, “Israel supports us in several channels, including at the UN.”

The Israeli prime minister is the only head of government who has the confidence of President Trump as well as President Putin. Few observers of the region grasp the scope of that accomplishment. Netanyahu did not create a working relationship with Russia by schmoozing its president, but by combining audacious grit and a willingness to compromise. In consequence, it appears possible for the United States and Israel to contain Iran’s imperial ambitions in the Levant without a shooting war. Russia has quietly but firmly discouraged Iran from crossing lines that would provoke actual hostilities, while allowing Israel to conduct hundreds of attacks against Iranian assets in Syria.

NIDRA POLLER’S NEW BOOK

Baltimore is in the news! Is it a sin to tell the truth about Baltimore …Or is Baltimore getting badmouthed with ulterior motives? Hard to say, if you’ve never been there.Do you know any writer, besides Edgar Allan Poe,that ever lived in Baltimore? Yes. The author of So Courage & Gypsy Motion

So Courage & Gypsy Motion

by Nidra Poller

AVAILABLE IN KINDLE  AND PAPERBACK

— I know what that’s about. That’s what he does to a woman… he’s so damned ro-man-tic, your dream come true, looking deep in your eyes and holding your hand across the table, candlelight and all that shit, but he did it goo-ood! Movie star lover… and then there’s something stone cold at the center of him, a falseness… no, it’s deeper than that … he doesn’t even know himself… but I dig. Do you know what he told me? He was madly in love with a chick but she was married and turned him down so he went out to get drunk… all the way to Baltimore down by the docks he ended up in this Greek place and he met this Barbara and he started in courting her you know sort of to get revenge against the other one, but she took him serious and before he knew it they were living together and so he said now he thinks he fell in love with her … So they’re still together?

“Eleven Years After the Credit Crisis: Debt, Interest Rates and Inflation” Sydney Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

The TED spread – the difference between Three-month U.S. Treasuries and Three-month LIBOR and an indicator of perceived credit risk in the general economy – declined from 314 basis points to 131 basis points during the fourth quarter of 2008, after reaching a high of over 458 basis points on October 6. (Historically, the yield spread had been closer to 50 basis points). The S&P 500 bottomed on March 9, 2009 at 676.53. The Second Quarter of 2009 marked the end of the 2007-2009 recession. The rate on Fed Funds, which began 2008 at 4.25%, ended the year at 0.25%. Despite having spent almost half a century on Wall Street, I am an observer not an expert on credit markets, so what follows are opinions that should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. It is my contention, however, that monetary policy over the past decade has been driven by political wants not economic needs.

 

In my opinion, the incoming Obama Administration, in 2009, used the credit-driven recession to justify a political agenda of increasing the role of government and “…fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as Mr. Obama put it five days before the 2008 election. Apart from demonizing Republicans, the first thing the new Administration did was to call the seven-quarter recession a “Great Recession,” reminding people of FDR and the Great Depression. Certainly, the bankruptcy of Lehman on September 15, 2008, and the ensuing credit crisis, made for a frightening few weeks, but the scare was over by the end of the year. While Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank Timothy Geithner have been criticized by some for their handling of the crisis, it is my belief they saved the system. Monday morning quarter-backing may argue that there were some things they did they should not have done and other things they did not do they should have done, but the bottom line is that, while Lehman want bankrupt and other banks were forced to sell out, by the end of December the crisis was largely resolved, as could be seen in the decline of the TED spread mentioned above and in the fact that high-yield bonds had begun to rally a month before year end.

For six and a half years, while the economy expanded from $14.2 trillion in 2009 to $18.2 trillion in 2015, the Federal Reserve left the Fed Funds Rate at 0.25%. It was only in the fourth quarter of 2015 that the Federal Reserve finally lifted the rate to 0.50%. The rate remained at that level until December 2016 when it was increased to 0.75%, just before the Trump Administration took office. During 2017, the rate rose, in three increments, to 1.50%. In 2018, the rate rose in four increments to 2.50% where it remains today – higher than it was but still low by any historical measure. However, once again, political pressure is being put on the Fed, this time by President Trump – and silently acquiesced to by members of Congress – to lower rates, a mistake, in my opinion. It is expected that this afternoon the Fed will reduce rates by twenty-five basis points.

Racist? Elijah Cummings Once Called Baltimore “Infested” Just Like Trump

https://www.infowars.com/racist-elijah-cummings-once-called-baltimore-infested-just-like-trump/

President Trump has been labeled a racist for using the word “infested” to describe Baltimore’s rat problem, but Elijah Cummings used the exact same word to describe the city back in 1999.

As the video below highlights, CNN slammed Trump for using the word “infested” to describe Baltimore, suggesting that the president was dehumanizing black people.

However, during 1999 testimony, Elijah Cummings referred to his own district as a “drug infested area”.
I guess Elijah Cummings is racist too.

As we previously highlighted, Bernie Sanders also claimed Trump was “attacking” an American city by calling Baltimore rat infested yet Sanders himself repeatedly said the place resembled a “third world country” back in 2015.

Meanwhile, Benny Johnson visited residents in Rep. Cummings district to find out what life is really like there.
Common themes; Rats, trash, crime, corrupt politicians.
Are they all racist too?
We are in a political firestorm over the condition of Baltimore.
So what is life really like there?
I spoke with residents in Rep. Cummings district.
Here’s what they had to say: Rats. Trash. Crime. Abandoned by politicians. Begging for change.
Want the truth?

The Humanitarian Hoax of Islamic Zakat: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 42 by Linda Goudsmit

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/23010/the-humanitarian-hoax-of-islamic-zakat-killing

   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.

Barack Obama’s infamous June 2009 “New Beginnings” Cairo speech laid the groundwork for eight years of pro-Islamic policies at the expense of Judeo-Christian America. One of Obama’s least understood and most destructive promises made in Cairo involved Islamic terror financing disguised as charitable giving and humanitarian relief. This is how it works.

There are Five Pillars of Islam that govern Muslim life. They are acknowledged, obligatory, and practiced by Muslims worldwide:

1. Shahada – the profession of faith

2. Salat – five times a day prayer

3. Zakat – charitable giving

4. Sawm – fasting

5. Hajj – pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakat, the Third Pillar of Islam, requires Muslims to deduct a portion of their income to support the Islamic community. It is a religious obligation, a mandatory charitable contribution or tax, usually about 2.5% of an individual’s income. Zakat sounds familiar and unthreatening like traditional tithing to churches, synagogues, and temples paid by Christians, Jews, and Buddhists around the world.

On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama exploited that familiarity and promised the Muslim world he would make zakat easier for American Muslims saying, “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.” So, what is the problem?

Zakat is not charitable giving like traditional charitable giving in other religions. In 2009 Obama knew that zakat was being used to finance Islamic terrorism. WHAT?? Obama knew? Let’s examine the chronological dates to confirm what Obama knew and when he knew it.

Turkey Threatens to Reignite European Migrant Crisis by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14624/turkey-threatens-migrant-crisis

“We are facing the biggest wave of migration in history. If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience.” — Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu.

“Turkey is fully committed to the objective of EU membership… The finalization of the Visa Liberalization Dialogue process which will allow our citizens to travel to the Schengen area without a visa, is our first priority.” — Statement released by the Turkish Foreign Ministry, May 9, 2019.

“This doesn’t mean that I have anything against the Turks…. But if we begin to explain it — that Turkey is in Europe — European school students will have to be told that the European border lies in Syria. Where’s common sense? … Can Turkey be regarded a European country culturally, historically, and economically speaking? If we say that, we want the European Union’s death.” — Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

If the EU approves the visa waiver, tens of millions of Turks will gain immediate and unimpeded access to Europe’s passport-free zone. Critics of visa liberalization fear that millions of Turkish nationals may end up migrating to Europe. The Austrian newsmagazine, Wochenblick, reported that 11 million Turks are living in poverty and “many of them are dreaming of moving to central Europe.”

Turkey has threatened to re-open the floodgates of mass migration to Europe unless Turkish nationals are granted visa-free travel to the European Union. The EU agreed to visa liberalization in a March 2016 EU-Turkey migrant deal in which Ankara pledged to stem the flow of migrants to Europe.

European officials insist that while Turkey has reduced the flow of migrants, it has not yet met all of the requirements for visa liberalization. Moreover, EU foreign ministers on July 15 decided to halt high-level talks with Ankara as part of sanctions over Turkish oil and gas drilling off the coast of Cyprus.

In an interview with Turkish television channel TGRT Haber on July 22, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Çavuşoğlu said that Turkey was backing out of the migrant deal because the EU had failed to honor its pledge to grant Turkish passport holders visa-free access to 26 European countries. “We have suspended the readmission agreement,” he said. “We will not wait at the EU’s door.”