Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

What the FBI was willing to do to take out Trump with no evidence By Jack Hellner

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/what_the_fbi_was_willing_to_do_to_take_out_trump_with_no_evidence.html

For almost three years bureaucrats from the Obama administration, including those at FBI and Justice, have tried to take out candidate and then President Trump with no actual evidence. Robert Mueller knew that Michael Flynn didn’t violate any laws by talking with a Russian after the election, knew that Comey tried to entrap Flynn, knew that FBI agents didn’t think he lied but badgered and sought to destroy and bankruptFlynn and his family until he caved to plead to perjury. Now, we learn from an article in the New York Times that the FBI started a secret investigation into whether President Trump worked for Russia even though there was no evidence that he did.

F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

And, of course, they found nothing.

China: Dystopia in Power By Alex Alexiev

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/china_dystopia_in_power.html

This debate has become even more heated, given some disturbing changes in China of late and the emergence of an American president seemingly willing to challenge Beijing’s accustomed rapacious way of doing business with the West. What has happened in China, in short, is a remarkable strengthening of the state-owned sector and therefore communist party rule under Xi Jinping, who came to power in 2012. According to The State Strikes Back: The End of Economic Reform in China? by Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute, while in 2013, 57% of bank loans went to private companies and 35% to state-owned firms, under Xi, in 2016, these percentages were dramatically reversed to 83% for state firms and only 11% for private companies, despite the fact that most state-owned companies were loss-making and inefficient compared to private ones. Finally, in perhaps the best example of the new ascendancy of the Communist Party yet, the party changed its succession rules in 2018 to allow Xi to become president for life – a clean break with Deng’s admonition not to allow another disastrous cult of personality of the party chairman like that of Mao.

Very little of this has seen the light in America’s mainstream media, which have been happy to project yet another Trump defeat in his “trade war” with China. In this, the media are uncannily similar to Walter Duranty of the New York Times and assorted leftist “political pilgrims” who could see nothing wrong with “Uncle Joe” Stalin and his murderous regime while they starved and murdered millions. Fortunately, history cannot be falsified forever, even by the Times, and eventually, books like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago and Robert Conquest’s The Great Terror and The Harvest of Sorrow appeared to provide a measure of historical justice to the victims.

Trump’s Mideast Strategy Like Obama, he wants the U.S. to step back. Unlike Obama, he wants to contain Iran.By Walter Russell Mead

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-mideast-strategy-11547509876

As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concludes his swing through the Middle East, the Trump administration’s regional strategy is coming into view. Like President Obama, President Trump wants to reduce American commitments while promoting stability. But their strategies differ. Mr. Obama thought the best hope for a reduced U.S. footprint was conciliating Iran. Mr. Trump, by contrast, seeks to build a coalition of U.S. regional allies—even if those allies fall well short of perfection—that can provide a stable security architecture and offset Iranian strength as the U.S. steps back.

In seeking a reduced Middle East presence and retreating from expansive human-rights goals, both Team Obama and Team Trump have reacted to significant changes in American politics. Public support for U.S. military action and democracy promotion in the Middle East has all but collapsed, for two reasons. First, decades of engagement in the region have brought neither stability nor democracy. Second, as America’s dependence on Middle East energy recedes, many voters see less reason to prioritize the region. Pundits can argue that these reactions are shortsighted, but politicians must take them into account.

The Trump administration hopes that with limited American support, Israel, Turkey and the Sunni Arab countries can together contain Iran. If so, Mr. Trump can claim credit for improved Israeli-Arab ties and a more stable region even as he cuts back on American troop and aid levels. This is a sounder strategy in the abstract than the Obama team’s gamble on Iranian restraint. U.S. relations with the Sunni Arab powers, Israel and Turkey are sometimes difficult, but a policy based on continued cooperation with them is more feasible than subordinating their interests to chase after an improved relationship with the deeply hostile regime in Tehran.

The Inherent Racism of Identity Politics Peter Baldwin *****

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/01-02/the-inherent-racism-of-identity-politics/

That only white people can be guilty of racism is preposterous. Most people are aware of non-white people vilifying other ethnic groups in racial terms. Why is this not racism? Why should the perpetrators not be held as accountable? Doesn’t it imply an inability to take responsibility — a racist presumption if ever there was one?

Identity politics racist? How can that be, you might ask. After all, is not the pursuit of “racial justice” part of the very essence of identity politics? Surely all those warriors for social justice who so prodigiously level charges of racism against others could not themselves be guilty of this offence? They wouldn’t embrace a racist ideology, would they?

Sad to say, yes they would, at least if we adopt what until recently was the standard, commonsense understanding of the terms race and racism. On these understandings, a person’s race referred to certain heritable, unalterable and visible features, like skin colour, that might indicate ancestry tracing back to a particular geographical region. A racist was someone who was inclined to think ill of, or to discriminate against, a person or group solely because of such characteristics.

Towards the end of the last century it became generally accepted in societies like ours that racism so defined was both morally odious and profoundly irrational. The classic expression of this was Martin Luther King’s great civil rights speech of 1963 in which he looked forward to a day when his children would be judged by “the content of their character”, not the colour of their skin.

The basic sentiment here, shared by most people across the ideological spectrum, and certainly those who considered themselves left-wing and progressive, was that race was something we should aspire to transcend. People must not be judged according to visible surface features that reflect trivial genetic variations. We should see each other as, first and foremost, members of a common humanity, free agents possessing certain inalienable rights.

So what has changed? A great deal, as it happens, with the wide embrace of the ideology of identity politics in Western societies, and its wholesale incorporation into the worldview of those who consider themselves left-wing or progressive. On this view, we are essentially defined not by our humanity but by our race, gender or other identity category, or some intersecting set of identities.

The notion of a post-racial future is now considered an ideological heresy by the academic high-priestesses and priests of the identitarian ideology. These ideologues are nowadays absolutely obsessed about race. They strive constantly to heighten racial awareness and to perpetuate rather than resolve racial grievances. The Enlightenment vision of a common humanity is now distinctly passé, as even the late Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm lamented in a speech in 1996.

‘Live Your Truth’ By Madeleine Kearns

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/transgender-birth-certificate-law-gender-identity-legal-concept-weak/

We’re only just beginning to understand the wider implications of a new law allowing New Yorkers to declare their chosen gender on their birth certificates.

Imagine that a man walks into a courtroom and swears to tell “my truth, the whole of my truth, and nothing but my truth, so help you all.” Imagine your incredulity as, for whatever reason, he gives an outlandishly false testimony. Imagine your dismay as the judge explains that all subsequent evidence and, especially, all cross examination, must support the man’s “truth,” and as he instructs the members of the jury that they, too, must affirm it.

“You be you. Live your truth. And know that New York City will have your back,” Mayor Bill de Blasio told a cheering crowd last year. He was referring to the introduction of a bill — since passed and signed into law — that allows New York City residents to change the sex on their birth certificate to M, F, or, if they like, the gender-neutral X, in order to conform their legal status to their “gender identity.”

Unlike sex, which is an objective and observable fact, “gender identity” — one’s sense of being male, female, or something else — is entirely subjective. It is a feeling. To say so is not to be dismissive or hurtful toward individuals who experience a disconnect between their birth sex and their sense of gender identity (i.e., “gender dysphoria”). It is merely to insist that the purpose of public records, such as birth certificates, is not to affirm or reflect our feelings — however strong or distressing they may be — but to document the truth, rather than your truth or my truth, for practical, legal purposes.

Moreover, that complicated, elusive, and multifaceted feelings now form the overarching theory of “gender identity” is not, as is commonly suggested in the New York Times, the result of some recent scientific advancement. The emphasis on subjectivity is a result of the shifting cultural and political paradigms of the 20th century that have influenced the field of psychology.

Women’s March Leader Defends Decision to Praise Farrakhan as the ‘Greatest of All Time’ By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tamika-mallory-defends-decision-to-praise-farrakhan-as-the-greatest-of-all-time/

During a Monday morning appearance on ABC’s The View, Women’s March co-chair Tamika Mallory defended her past praise for notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan by drawing a distinction between his hateful rhetoric and his political advocacy on behalf of African-Americans.

“I didn’t call him the greatest of all time because of his rhetoric. I called him the greatest of all time because of what he’s done in black communities,” Mallory said when asked about a February social-media post in which she labeled Farrakhan the “GOAT.”

The post in question captured Mallory’s attendance at the Nation of Islam leader’s 2018 Saviour’s Day address in Chicago, during which he described Jews as “satanic” and dubbed them his “enemy.”

Pressed by the The View’s Meghan McCain to explicitly denounce Farrakhan, Mallory repeatedly stated that she disagreed with some of his views, but refused to broadly condemn him and insinuated that asking her to do so amounted to sexism.

In response to the controversy created by Mallory’s Instagram post, the Women’s March issued a statement condemning bigotry in general without mentioning Farrakhan specifically. A number of regional Women’s March chapters, as well as the original Women’s March founder Theresa Shook, disaffiliated from the organization in response to the group’s perceived sympathy for anti-Semitism.

Watergate by Any Other Name By Roger Kimball

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/watergate-by-any-other-name/

Our familiarity with the Obama-Trump surveillance scandal has bred indifference.

Familiarity, it is said, breeds contempt. It also breeds indifference. For almost three years now, the intelligence services and police apparatus of the deep state have worked tirelessly to undermine Donald Trump. Beginning sometime in the late winter of 2016, when Trump’s presidential campaign was showing unexpected signs of strength, John Brennan—the Communist-voting apparatchik turned media mouthpiece whom it pleased Barack Obama to appoint as director of the CIA—began ringing alarm bells about Trump’s possible relations with the Kremlin. His concern was based on two things. One was a report, spurious as it turned out, about “contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians.” The other was that brittle sense of entitlement, fired by paranoia, that membership in the higher echelons of the deep state’s nomenklatura breeds.

Brennan convened a “working group” at CIA headquarters that included Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent who was head of counter-intelligence, and James Clapper, then director of national intelligence (now, like Brennan, another mouthpiece for the left-wing media), in order to stymie Trump’s campaign. It was Brennan, too, who first alerted James Comey, the disgraced former director of the F.B.I., to the fantasy of possible “collusion” between the Trump Campaign and “the Russians.”

Then came the infamous “Steele Dossier,” the agglomeration of malicious gossip about Trump that was surreptitiously commissioned by and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. This fantastical piece of “opposition research” was essentially the sole warrant for opening secret FISA investigations against Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign advisor, and others.

All this provided sensational pabulum for the anti-Trump press, who spent countless hours peeling back the complex, hypertrophied onion that the CIA, the FBI, and various figures within the Obama administration had built up to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump without quite seeming to target Trump himself.

Mirabile ditctu, it didn’t work. Still, it was impossible that Trump could actually win the election. Nancy Pelosi told us that we could “take it to the bank” that Donald Trump was not going to be president. Many other politicians and talking heads made fools of themselves emitting similar pseudo-certainties right up to the afternoon and early evening of election day.

Former Obama Housing Chief Julian Castro Joins 2020 Campaign . By Paul Weber

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/14/former_obama_housing_chief_julian_castro_joins_2020_campaign_139169.html

Assailing President Donald Trump for “a crisis of leadership,” former Obama Cabinet member Julian Castro joined the 2020 presidential race Saturday as the rush of Democrats making early moves to challenge the incumbent accelerates.

Castro, who could end up being the only Latino in what is shaping up to be a crowded Democratic field, made immigration a centerpiece of his announcement in his hometown of San Antonio, less than 200 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

Two days after the president visited the border to promote his promised wall, Castro mocked Trump for claiming that the U.S. faces an “invasion” from its ally to the south. “He called it a national security crisis,” Castro said. “Well, there is a crisis today. It’s a crisis of leadership. Donald Trump has failed to uphold the values of our great nation.”

Castro, the 44-year-old grandson of a Mexican immigrant, said he was running for president “because it’s time for new leadership, because it’s time for new energy and it’s time for a new commitment to make sure that the opportunities that I’ve had are available to every American.”

He made the announcement during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, and as the field of 2020 contenders widens and anticipation grows around bigger names still considering runs.

Castro was San Antonio’s mayor for five years and U.S. housing secretary in President Barack Obama’s second term. He became the second Democrat to formally enter race, after former Maryland Rep. John Delaney.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has also started an exploratory committee for president, and four other Democratic senators are taking steady steps toward running. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu elected to Congress, said this week she is planning a bid, too.

For his part, Trump said he isn’t worried about the burgeoning field of Democratic opponents. He has already announced that he’s running for re-election.

“I love what I see,” Trump said Saturday night when asked about the competition during a telephone interview with Fox News Channel. He recited a list of what he views as his accomplishments, including low unemployment, tax cuts and trade deals.

NYT Reveals FBI Retaliated Against Trump For Comey Firing By Mollie Hemingway

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14/nyt-reveals-fbi-retaliated-against-trump-for-comey-firing/#.XDyD0qdFYeU.twitter
A Friday expose from the New York Times reveals that the FBI investigation of Trump for alleged treason was little more than retaliation against the president for lawfully firing an incompetent and ethically challenged FBI director.

In a Friday night news dump, the New York Times revealed the FBI’s surprisingly flimsy justification for launching a retaliatory investigation into President Donald Trump, their chief adversary during their recent troubled era.

Admitting there is no actual evidence for their probe into whether Trump “worked for the Russians,” FBI officials instead cited their foreign policy differences with him, his lawful firing of bungling FBI Director James Comey, and alarm that he accurately revealed to the American public that he was told he wasn’t under investigation by the FBI, when they preferred to hide that fact.

The news was treated as a bombshell, and it was, but not for the reasons many thought. It wasn’t news that the FBI had launched the investigation. Just last month, CNN reported that top FBI officials opened an investigation into Trump after the lawful firing of Comey because Trump “needed to be reined in,” a shocking admission of abuse of power by our nation’s top law enforcement agency.

The Washington Post reported Mueller was looking into whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by insisting he was innocent of the outlandish charges selectively leaked by government officials to compliant media. Perhaps because such an obstruction investigation was immediately condemned as scandalous political overreach, that aspect was downplayed while Mueller engaged in a limitless “Russia” probe that has rung up countless Trump affiliates for process crimes unrelated to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and spun off various investigations having nothing to do with Russia in any way.

The latest Times report does provide more detail than these earlier reports, however, and none of it makes the FBI look good. In fact, it provides evidence of a usurpation of constitutional authority to determine foreign policy that belongs not with a politically unaccountable FBI but with the citizens’ elected president. More on that in a bit.

MY SAY: “DEAR ERICH” A JAZZ OPERA

Yesterday I went to a performance of the world premiere of an opera with music composed by Ted Rosenthal, a respected jazz pianist, author and composer, with libretto and lyrics by Ted and Leslie Rosenthal and additional lyrics by Barry Singer, E.M. Lewis and Edward Einhorn. My friend Sheila W. concurred that the work, presented by the New York City Opera at the New York Museum of Jewish Heritage is a masterpiece based on a true story.

The libretto centers on a trove of letters from a mother left behind in Germany in 1938, by a young Jew who came to America- Erich Rosenthal – the composer’s father. Erich is a cold and distant father who does not reveal anything of his past to his children, as he copes with grief and loss and guilt at his failed efforts to rescue his abandoned family. The letters from his mother stopped abruptly in 1942 when she and her neighbors and family left for the death camp Sobibor.

The music, some jazz, some operatic was performed by a wonderful and brilliant cast, interspersed with haunting and devastating flashback scenes of the horrors of the impending genocide. The broken father, nearing death, ponders about his family :”Who will remember them when I am gone?”

Thanks to this magnificent opus, they will be remembered. I came home and looked at pictures of my grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins- all killed in Poland and recited their names to myself….rsk