Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

Rep. Jim Jordan: Comey Said 245 Times “Don’t Remember, Don’t Recall, Don’t Know”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/12/09/rep_jim_jordan_comey_said_245_times_dont_remember_dont_recall_dont_know.html

Rep. Jim Jordan, Republican member of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, blasts former FBI director James Comey for answering more than 200 questions at Friday’s closed-door hearing with, “I can’t recall.”

“245 times he said ‘don’t remember, don’t recall, don’t know.’ The biggest takeaway for me was the ‘don’t know’ part. Specifically, he didn’t know much about Christopher Steele, the guy who used his work product, the dossier, to get the warrant to spy on the Trump campaign,” Jordan explained. “Here’s the key player, the guy who wrote the document that was the basis for getting the warrant, and he didn’t know anything about it.”

There is No Such Thing as Free Lunch (Nor Free Healthcare) By Christopher Roach

https://amgreatness.com/2018/12/08/there-is-no-such

Americans are really beginning to sour on Obamacare, misleadingly titled the Affordable Care Act. Every year premiums go up, out of pocket costs go up, and care is only marginally better and in some cases worse, due to the influx of the sickest people into the healthcare system seeking generous, subsidized insurance.

Obamacare hasn’t delivered, even on its own terms. The most productive and enterprising Americans—small business owners and independent contractors—must foot monthly premiums of $1,000 or more in order to have the privilege of shelling out even more thousands in the event they get seriously ill.

In light of this debacle, some have resorted to magical thinking. Our favorite magician, young congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), tweeted the following in favor of “Medicare for All”:

While conservatives have generally rejected solutions like this, the impulse that drives the desire is understandable. Medical inflation is enormous and grossly disproportionate to improved outcomes. Medicare is a generous and expensive program, but one that mostly serves its clients well. The elderly, who often need substantial medical care, are generally able to partake with minimal personal expense.

Medicare costs incurred by patients are certainly a fraction of what self-employed, the young, and others pay for healthcare. And medicare remains more or less solvent because lots of healthy and younger people are paying into the pool. In other words, there are multiple payers for each recipient. The same is true of Tricare, the medical insurance plan for military service members and their dependents.

DAVID WEINBERGER REVIEWS THOMAS SOWELL’S “DISCRIMINATION AND DISPARITIES”

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/07/thomas-sowell-explains-the-economics-of-discrimination/
Thomas Sowell Explains The Economics Of Discrimination
The revered economist’s latest book, ‘Discrimination and Disparities,’ takes a look at the high cost of misguided policies aimed at achieving social justice.

At 88 years old, Thomas Sowell continues to demonstrate why he’s one of the most formidable intellects of the age. In Discrimination and Disparities, released earlier this year, Sowell rebuts common misconceptions regarding socioeconomic differences among individuals, groups, and nations, and demonstrates that disparities are often explained by economics.

For instance, emotionally loaded phrases like “systemic racism” and “exploitation” are frequently used to explain differences between blacks and whites, rich and poor, and even individual nations. But a better understanding of economics refutes these notions.

Sowell begins by noting there are different types of discrimination. Discrimination I he defines as “an ability to discern differences in the qualities of people and things, and choosing accordingly”—in other words, “making fact-based distinctions.” Discrimination II he defines as “treating people negatively, based on arbitrary assumptions or aversions concerning individuals of a particular race or sex, for example”—in other words, what most people mean today when they talk of “discrimination.”

Ideally, Discrimination I—judging each person individually—would be universally practiced. Rarely, however, is the ideal “found among human beings in the real world, even among people who espouse that ideal.” He gives an example:

If you are walking at night down a lonely street, and see up ahead a shadowy figure in an alley, do you judge that person as an individual or do you cross the street and pass on the other side? The shadowy figure in the alley could turn out to be a kindly neighbor, out walking his dog. But, when making such decisions, a mistake on your part could be costly, up to and including costing you your life.

In short, cost is the relevant factor when determining a course of action. The cost of Discrimination I—judging the person as an individual—may be prohibitively high in some cases, as when you approach a shadowy figure in a dark alley. But that does not mean that choosing to cross the street to avoid that shadowy figure is automatically Discrimination II—arbitrarily expressing antipathy toward a group.

‘Your time is up, white people’: South African parliament targets next March for land expropriation By Rick Moran

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/your_time_is_up_white_people_south_african_parliament_targets_next_march_for_land_expropriation.html

The South African parliament approved a motion that would set up an ad-hoc committee to recommend procedures on how land expropriation without compensation would work. Earlier, the parliament had approved the constitutional changes that would give the government power to take land from white farmers without paying for it.

IOL:

The motion was adopted with 183 votes in favour and 77 against. There were no abstentions.

Opposition parties had objected vehemently, with the Freedom Front Plus’s Anton Alberts reiterating the party’s threat that land expropriation would lead to instability.

“When the blood flows it will be on your hands,” Alberts said in the direction of the ANC benches.

The Congress of the People’s Deirdre Carter urged voters to go to the polls to “stop the ANC, stop the EFF, the only way you can do it”.

Themba Godi, from the African People’s Convention, backed the ANC and Economic Freedom Fighters’ support for the motion and an amendment, saying those who opposed land reform were, in fact, supporting the oppression of African people.

“Land must be nationalised and socialised for the benefit of the people, especially the working class and women …. those who oppose want the perpetuation of wrongs of past.”

Tell me if you think this expropriation scheme is going to go peacefully:

Star:

But there were heated scenes in the House when politicians clashed over the plans.

According to local reports, Economic Freedom Fighters MP Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi argued land grabs must go ahead as she declared: “Your time is up, white people”.

This came as the IFP MP Mkhuleko Hlengwa said the plans undermine South Africa’s position as a democratic state.

According to the Daily Maverick, he said: “To achieve real and effective land reform is (possible) under the existing Constitution, not your (ANC) populist agenda.

“You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Greenies take a beating on fossil fuel divestment at Harvard By Monica Showalter

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/greenies_take_a_beating_on_fossil_fuel_divestment_at_harvard.html

Is the green fraud finally dead? Probably not, but when you’ve got Harvard students rejecting a free-and-easy-to-sign petition for university divestment from fossil fuels – in droves – you know someone’s wising up. Maybe this is the start of something.

Here’s what the Washington Examiner reported:

In response to recent doomsday predictions by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a number of Harvard students decided to take matters into their own hands by calling on the administration to completely divest all financial holdings in industries associated with fossil fuels. According to the petition, Harvard has an obligation to divest its funds due to its significant role in the “global economy.”

…and…

Despite their efforts, a measly 166 individuals have signed on to their Change.org petition, which accounts for roughly 0.36 percent of the school’s 40,818 students and faculty. According to journalists for Harvard’s student newspaper, the Crimson, administrators have “flatly rejected” the idea of immediate divestment.

Based on what’s seen at the petition itself, it’s been up at least seven days, and only managed to get 100 signatures in the first seven, and 91 now. Can you say ‘pathetic’?

Maybe that’s because Harvard students read the news as kids and learned all about how fraudy and corruption-prone ‘green’ energy is, as evidenced by Solyndra. Green energy is fraud energy, simple enough to understand. Or maybe the brighter ones know for a fact that ‘green’ energy relies on coal-fired plants to create all those electrical power-charging stations, could it be that? Maybe the kids are just sick of this divest-everything blather, which has been going on since the 1980s. Or maybe the kids are noticing what happens when greens rule the roost in cities like Paris.

Israel’s “gatekeepers” vs. democracy Caroline Glick

https://carolineglick.com/israels-gatekeepers-vs-democracy/

Israel has no written constitution – but all the same, it is steeped in a deep and dangerous constitutional crisis. In the balance hangs nothing less than the country’s ability to remain a democracy, where the people elect their leaders and the elected leaders govern the country.

Presently, a powerful group of unelected, self-appointed “gatekeepers” is challenging the foundations of Israel’s democratic order. These self-empowered “gatekeepers” seek to end Israeli democracy by acting as a wedge between the people and their elected leaders and preventing those leaders from using the power vested in them by voters.

The present crisis was revealed starkly on Tuesday in an otherwise unimportant and deeply boring hearing on Israel’s dairy industry at the Knesset’s Economic Affairs Committee.

But to understand what happened, it is important to go back to November 5. That day, Deputy attorney-general Dina Zilber was asked to represent the position of the government regarding a controversial bill that would block state funding to artists and productions that campaign against Israel. Rather than present the government’s position, Zilber brutally attacked the bill. In an outburst entirely bereft of legal argumentation, Zilber effectively said that Israel was losing its soul.

This statement was in keeping with Zilber’s long record of abusing her power as the deputy attorney-general to advance her far-Left political agenda on everything from undermining the development of Israeli communities beyond the armistice lines to requiring religious groups to either permit men and women to participate in their events or be denied access to public facilities.

Belgium’s Government in Crisis Over UN Migration Pact By Rick Moran

https://pjmedia.com/trending/belgiums-government-in-crisis-over-un-migration-pact/

The government of Belgium Prime Minister Charles Michel was rocked by the withdrawal of a major coalition partner over Michel’s intent to sign the UN migration pact.

The pact was negotiated by 180 countries and is due to be signed on Monday. But at least six EU countries will refuse to sign the accord, which was given the green light last summer.

What happened in the interim is a classic case of political leaders getting out too far in front of the people. While the nations signed off on the pact, many have been having second thoughts as the rise of nationalist parties has put a damper on the signing ceremony.

In Belgium, Michel faced a revolt by the nationalist N-VA, the largest party in parliament. When Michel refused to accede to their demand he not sign the treaty, N-VA cabinet ministers quit. Michel says he will continue governing with a minority, but his power will be severely curtailed.

Reuters:

Michel had secured a large parliamentary majority last week in favour of maintaining Belgium’s support of the United Nations text, which since it was agreed by all U.N. states bar the United States in July has run into criticism from European politicians who say it could increase immigration to Europe.

The N-VA faces electoral losses in its Dutch-speaking region to the harder-right, anti-immigration Vlaams Belang. Its leader Bart De Wever, the mayor of Belgium’s second city Antwerp, had issued Michel an ultimatum that it would quit the government if he signed the non-binding U.N. declaration.

A crisis cabinet meeting on Saturday night was cut short when two N-VA ministers, Interior Minister Jan Jambon and Migration Minister Theo Francken, walked out.

Michel said he would replace N-VA ministers with lower-ranked state secretaries and maintain a minority coalition involving his French-speaking liberal MR and two Flemish parties, the centre-right CD&V and Open VLD.

At least six EU states — mostly in formerly Communist eastern Europe — have already shunned the accord to regulate the treatment of migrants worldwide, a sign of how the bloc has turned increasingly restrictive on accepting refugees and migrants alike since a 2015 spike in arrivals.

Why all this trouble over a non-binding, toothless pact?

Comey’s confession: dossier not verified before, or after, FISA warrant By John Solomon

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/420408-comeys-confession-dossier-not-verified-before-or-after-fisa-warrant

Many people I know in law enforcement circles shuddered when James Comey tweeted recently that acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker “may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.”

To them, Comey’s Twitter attack crossed that “blue line” – the one that real cops abide by, to never criticize fellow officers and to always have their backs.

I had a different reaction. I found it odd that a man who started his Twitter career by quoting Bible verses about justice might have forgotten one of the golden utterances from Jesus himself: “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.”

The failures of Comey’s remarkably turbulent and short tenure as FBI director were on display again Friday on Capitol Hill, when he was interviewed in a closed-door session by two House committees. Republican lawmakers were aghast at his sudden lack of recollection of key events.

He didn’t seem to know that his own FBI was using No. 4 Justice Department official Bruce Ohr as a conduit to keep collecting intelligence from Christopher Steele after the British intel operative was fired by the bureau for leaking and lying. In fact, Comey didn’t seem to remember knowing that Steele had been terminated, according to sources in the room.

“His memory was so bad I feared he might not remember how to get out of the room after the interview,” one lawmaker quipped. Lamented another: “It was like he suddenly developed dementia or Alzheimer’s, after conveniently remembering enough facts to sell his book.”

Faintness of memory is a common symptom for witnesses under the intense spotlight. But lawmakers were relieved when Comey could remember one fact that is essential to understanding if his FBI acted appropriately in the investigation of Donald Trump and Russia.

What Happened When We Tried to Debate Immigration written by Matthew Goodwin and Eric Kaufmann

https://quillette.com/2018/12/08/what-happened-when-we

Immigration and diversity politics dominate our political and public debates. Disagreements about these issues lie behind the rise of populist politics on the left and the right, as well as the growing polarization of our societies more widely. Unless we find a way of side-stepping the extremes and debating these issues in an evidence-led, analytical way then the moderate, pluralistic middle will buckle and give way.

This is why, as two university professors who work on these issues, we decided to help organize and join a public debate about immigration and ethnic change. The debate, held in London on December 6, was a great success, featuring a nuanced and evidence-based discussion attended by 400 people. It was initially titled, “Is Rising Ethnic Diversity a Threat to the West?” This was certainly a provocative title, designed to draw in a large audience who might hold strong views on the topic but who would nonetheless be exposed to a moderated and evidence-led debate. Though we would later change the title, we couldn’t escape its powerful logic: On the night itself, we repeatedly returned to this phrasing because it is the clearest way of distinguishing competing positions.

Aside from ourselves, two university professors who between us have researched the issue for decades, the panel included Trevor Philips, the former Head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (who is of African-Caribbean heritage), and David Aaronovitch, a liberal columnist at The Times. The debate was chaired by Claire Fox and co-sponsored by the Academy of Ideas, founded to provide a “forum committed to open and robust public debate in which ideas can be interrogated,” and the online magazine UnHerd, which aims to draw attention to stories and ideas that do not usually get covered in the mainstream media.

As soon as the title of the event was published it provoked a strong backlash. Rather than a genuine debate, it was interpreted as an open attack on immigrants and minorities. Before the event had taken place, before a word had been spoken, one professor accused us of “helping to advance a white nationalist agenda” and engaging in “nativist and racist discourse.” Other academics retweeted accounts that suggested we were “complicit in violence,” including the U.S. mail bombs and the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue (two of our panelists are of Jewish heritage). Still others contended that we were contributing to racism, that by posing the question we were “devaluing” scholars from minority backgrounds (Kaufmann is of mixed race).

In the spirit of compromise, and to meet our critics halfway, we changed the title of the event to: “Immigration and Diversity Politics: A Challenge to Liberal Democracy?” But that was not enough. Even after this change, academics joined with self-described anti-fascist activists to publish an open letter on the platform Open Democracy. Titled “Framing ethnic diversity as a ‘threat’ will normalise far-right hate,” the letter claimed that the debate “was framed within the terms of white supremacist discourse” and “automatically targets communities already suffering from discrimination as part of the ‘problem.’” While the letter did not call for the debate to be cancelled, it concluded that “no other alternative factor or scenario is identified as a ‘threat.’” that the event had “racist presumptions,” “contributes to far right ‘dog whistling,’” and “serves to normalise ideas that should be firmly challenged.” These claims, they continued, were “undeniable.”

The Mueller Investigation is a Pretext for Obstructing the Investigation of FISA Abuses Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/272187/mueller-investigation-pretext-obstructing-daniel-greenfield

Mr. Comey went to Congress and did his usual Colonel Klink routine of knowing nothing about anything at all. But this time he had a fresh excuse for not answering questions about the abuse of the FISA process by the Obama administration in order to spy on the political opposition.

Answering such questions might interfere with the Mueller investigation.

Thus we had the fresh farce of a lawyer from a discredited arm of the government, which has lately taken to executing search warrants against its own whistleblowers (the sort of thing that the media would report on if it too wasn’t an arm of the same political faction) refusing to answer questions relevant to the House investigation of government abuses because it would interfere with a later investigation.

Please don’t ask questions about Obama’s Watergate because it might get in the way of our attempt to Watergate Trump.

The Mueller investigation serves many purposes

1. Helping the Democrats illegitimately reverse the 2016 election

2. Boosting sales of the Washington Post

and…

3. Obstructing any investigation of the FBI surveillance of the political opposition

And for guys like Mueller, it’s the latter that may be the most important. Every bit of oxygen that Mueller’s coup gets snuffs out any investigation of FISA abuses.