Displaying the most recent of 90443 posts written by

Ruth King

An End to Racial Preferences at Last? By John Yoo & James C. Phillips

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/supreme-court-racial-preferences-affirmative-action/

The Supreme Court could be ready to rule that racial discrimination is illegal, even if it is purportedly done for a good cause.

Editor’s Note: The following is the sixth in a series of articles in which Mr. Yoo and Mr. Phillips lay out a course of constitutional restoration, pointing out areas where the Supreme Court has driven the Constitution off its rails and the ways the current Court can put it back on track. The first entry is available here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, and the fifth here.

America has a race problem. It has always had a race problem. Slavery, as many have observed, is America’s original sin. The challenge that will confront the new Roberts Court is how far it will allow government to make amends for that sin, while preventing a new elite of social engineers from jury-rigging the right racial balances — all in the name of a racial diversity that has suddenly became an end of a just society, rather than merely a means. As with its passages on religion, the Second Amendment, or the role of the courts, the Constitution’s command is relatively clear. It is the Court’s past failures to live up to principle that has kept the issue in doubt, but the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh may finally put it to rest.

More than 150 years after the end of slavery, 60 years after the end of public-school segregation, and two years after America’s first black president left the Oval Office, accusations of racism fill our airwaves and screens. Democrats fresh off a solid midterm victory in Congress still claim that the suppression of minority voting cost them governorships and Senate seats, despite voter turnout that reached heights not seen since 1914. On the other hand, those same Democrats argue that governments should use racial data to draw voter districts and hand out government contracts, and argue that state and local police harbor such racial animus against minorities as to shoot them at high rates.

Meanwhile, Asian students have uncovered evidence that Harvard University has used ridiculous stereotypes to engineer the right racial balances in its admissions process. As a recent lawsuit against the Ivy League school has revealed, Asian Americans consistently make up just 19 percent of the student body, despite an increasing percentage of Asian-American college students nationwide. Asians score higher than any other group on academic criteria and extracurricular activities. If academic merit alone determined admissions, the university admitted that Asians would make up 43 percent of the student body, about the same level reached at the University of California at Berkeley after California ended affirmative action by popular initiative.

How to Rebalance US Global Security Cheaply and Easily by Stephen Blank and Peter Huessy

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13382/inf-treaty-withdrawal

Russia, evidently not restrained by the agreement, is already building missiles outside the INF treaty, according to an October 29, 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service. The bottom line is: If the Russians do not comply with the INF arms control treaty, there is no treaty to be saved.

Worse, as China was never a party to the INF treaty, it is deploying thousands of such INF range missiles in the Pacific, thereby putting the USA and its allies at a serious military disadvantage.

To counter such threats effectively and stand up to the culture of intimidation and threats of both Russia and China, the US needs create a conventional missile and nuclear deterrent capability that is at least on a par with those of Moscow and Beijing. Such deployments, rather than undermining arms control, might even induce Russia and China to negotiate any future arms negotiations with the US in better faith, while simultaneously strengthening US security.

If created with US allies in the Pacific, such relatively inexpensive and easily produced conventionally armed missiles would, in short order, rebalance the Pacific security situation in the favor of the US and its Indo-Pacific alliances.

The US renunciation of the 1987 United States-Soviet Union Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) has generated much skepticism in the arms-control community – particularly in much of Europe, and from Japan.

Sweden’s Parliamentary Election Crisis by Kent Ekeroth

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13381/sweden-parliamentary-crisis

This morning, December 5, we will get more information from speaker Norlén when a third vote on who is going to be prime minister will be held. Once again, Löfven (S) will most likely be running for the position. If C and L betray their Alliance-coalition and supports Löfven, he wins; if negotiations fail, he loses for the second time.

The main reason Sweden will probably not have a re-election is that if we did, the party that has the most to gain from another election is SD – which all the other parties are fervently trying to stop.

Also, if there were a re-election, both the Liberal party and the Green party have a high likelihood of failing to get enough votes even to get into parliament.

In fact, out of the 349 seats in Swedish parliament, it would take only 21 more seats to go to SD, M or KD for these three parties to get a majority in parliament.

Sweden has always been extremely stable when it comes to our governments and the time it takes to form them.

After the election in 2014 (we have elections every four years) the government took office 19 days later. Until this year, in fact, it has never taken more than 25 days after an election to form a government; the average time is just six days.

Today, however, 86 days have passed since Sweden’s last election without a government having formed – a record by a wide margin.

Macron’s Climate Plan B Donald Trump’s warning to the Frenchman is looking prescient.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/macrons-climate-plan-b-1543965655

‘There is no Plan B because there is no Planet B,” Emmanuel Macron lectured Donald Trump—in English—when the American President withdrew from the Paris climate agreement last year. Well, apparently there is a Plan B after all. Mr. Macron on Tuesday stopped his fuel-tax increase after concluding that marginal carbon reductions aren’t worth kneecapping an economy and sacrificing his political career. Mr. Trump could have warned him.

The French President views stopping climate change as a grand legacy project, and he had hoped to use higher fuel taxes to discourage driving for the sake of slashing carbon emissions. It didn’t matter to him that French emissions already are very low on a per capita basis and further cuts to transport emissions would be extremely difficult to achieve. But this matters a great deal to lower-income rural voters whose use of cars for daily life and business was about to become much more expensive.

Those voters produced the yellow-vest movement—named for the safety gear they wear—that in turn has created a political crisis for Mr. Macron. What began as a few hundred thousand protesters scattered around the country became more than a million last weekend, including inexcusable rioting mobs in Paris.

Mr. Macron’s tax backtrack, which his government says is only for six months, might induce the protesters to return home. But the movement grew so large and garnered so much public sympathy that his entire economic-reform agenda is now in jeopardy. The fuel tax was not part of his election campaign.

It’s Full-Out War Between Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson By Bruce Bawer

https://pjmedia.com/trending/its-full-out-war-between-nigel-farage-and-tommy-robinson/

“It feels like Westminster is tumbling towards a political crisis without modern precedent,” wrote the BBC’s Ben Wright on November 27. On July 23, 2016, British subjects voted to leave the EU; on December 11, the House of Commons will decide whether or not to approve the horrible deal that Prime Minister Theresa May has struck with the EU honchos and that, her claims to the contrary, comes nowhere close to returning full independence to the UK. If, as seems likely at the moment, the MPs turn down May’s deal, it’s not clear what will happen next, even though, one way or the other, Britain’s EU membership is scheduled to expire on March 29 of next year.

The most important thing at stake in all of this is Britain’s ability to control its own borders, formulate its own immigration policies, and expel certain individuals from the country without having to ask permission from some court in Brussels. These things are important, in turn, because the only hope for Britain’s long-term survival as a Western democracy lies in a radical change in its approach to, in a word, Islam.

To be sure, it may be too late to rescue the UK. The Muslim population may already be too large and the demographic trends irreversible. Certainly a divorce from Brussels won’t be enough by itself to save the day. The two main parties refuse to talk honestly about Islam, as do the mainstream media. Authorities would rather ban Islam critics from the country than deport preachers of terror. Even Mr. Brexit himself, Nigel Farage, has consistently taken a see-no-evil approach to the Religion of Peace. In recent months, however, his successor as head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Gerard Batten, has started speaking the truth about Islam – and has even taken on Tommy Robinson as a personal advisor – and has thereby made that party even more of a ray of hope for Britain than it was before.

Unsurprisingly, these actions on Batten’s part have outraged Farage, resulting in some very unpleasant conflict in the top ranks of the pro-Brexit crowd. In recent days, Farage has repeatedly called Tommy a racist – an allegation that anyone familiar with Tommy’s record knows to be untrue. By associating with the likes of Robinson, Farage complained on his December 2 radio/TV program on LBC, “UKIP becomes the BNP,” i.e., the British National Party, a genuinely racist group that Robinson joined in his youth and quit shortly thereafter as soon as he realized that it was racist.

On that same show, Farage also labeled Robinson a “thug,” citing his prison record without acknowledging that British authorities have been going after Robinson for years in much the same way that Robert Mueller is going after Trump, desperately looking for crimes to pin on him. Robinson’s most recent incarceration, of course, was the result of a shamefully irregular courtroom exercise that was later condemned in the sternest terms by the nation’s highest judge, but Farage made no mention whatsoever of that farcical miscarriage of justice. Farage further maintained that participants in the pro-Tommy rallies that took place across Britain this summer had committed acts of violence on a large scale. This, too, was untrue.

“I am disgusted,” Farage said about Robinson’s newfound ties to UKIP, charging that thanks to this connection, and thanks to Batten’s public comments about Islam, UKIP now looks like a party that is “fighting a religious crusade against Islam.” Noting that Robinson is scheduled to speak at a pro-Brexit rally on December 9, Farage fretted that his presence would draw the wrong sort of people and result in widespread acts of public disorder: “I don’t want Gerard Batten and Tommy Robinson to be seen to lead something that is violent, nasty, and unpleasant and that will be used…to say ‘this is what Brexit represents.’”

On his show, Farage takes phone calls from listeners and also answers questions apparently sent in by text message. Some of his listeners on December 2 shared his concern about the changes in UKIP. Others did not. They pushed back at his characterization of Tommy’s followers and his claims of violence at Tommy’s rallies. “You are insulting a lot of decent people,” one listener told Farage. “You are demonizing Tommy Robinson.” Another listener pointed out that Farage, too, had long been smeared as a racist and Islamophobe. “Yes,” Farage replied, “but in my case it was unfair.”

Several listeners felt, as I did, that Farage’s remarks about Tommy and Tommy’s “background” (as Farage put it) and Tommy’s followers (whom Farage actually dismissed as “convicts and thugs”) reeked of class condescension. CONTINUE AT SITE

One-Eyed-Jack Law By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/mueller-probe-fisa-warrants-fbi-informants/

Criminals and partisans, accusing others of criminality and partisanship

R obert Mueller’s legal team may write a damning report on Trump’s ethics, based mostly on flipping minor former business associates of Trump’s and transient campaign officials by threatening them with long prison sentences.

So far, we know that the U.S. government decided to intervene in a political campaign to help one candidate and to smear the other — under the pretext of Russian “collusion.” And so it hired or made use of spies and informants including Hank Greenberg, Stefan Halper, Felix Sater, and others to contact Trump campaign officials to catch them in supposed collusion traps. It enlisted the help of foreign intelligence agencies, specifically the British and Australians. It misled FISA courts into granting warrants to spy on Americans and, post factum, threatened long prisons sentences with those surveilled and interviewed. And as a result, it has so far found no collusion but may well find some misleading statements in hundreds of hours of testimonies from the likes of Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and perhaps Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone.

Mueller cannot fulfill the hype of the past 18 months, which forecast that the “all-stars,” the “dream-team,” and the Mueller “army” would make short work of the supposedly buffoonish Trump by proving that he colluded with Russia to swing an election. Collusion, remember, was hyped as doing what the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, the 25th Amendment, impeachment, media frenzy, and assassination-chic rhetoric had not.

By indicting a number of minor characters on charges that so far have nothing to do with collusion — for purported crimes mostly committed after the special-counsel appointment — Mueller has emphasized the quantity rather than the quality of indictments.

Mueller was tasked to find collusion (itself not a crime) committed during 2015 and 2016, not to prompt more purported crimes by setting perjury traps, and purported obstruction-of-justice liabilities. If in May 2017 the frenzied media had known that 18 months later Mueller would end up targeting the provocateur Roger Stone and Inforwars’ Jerome Corsi, it would have been sorely humiliated.

Emmanuel Macron has united France against him The French leader is politically tone-deaf Jonathan Miller

https://spectator.us/emmanuel-macron-united-france/

I would say we’ll always have Paris. But maybe not. It was only a few weeks ago that French president Emmanuel Macron promised a red carpet for bankers fleeing Brexit Britain. As matters have unfolded, the carpet has become one of broken glass.

On the Avenue Kléber, one of the toniest streets in Paris and heart of the district where Macron will have been expecting to resettle his beloved bankers, fleeing London like the sans culottes, every bank has been attacked, every shop window broken, upscale apartments have been attacked and every Porsche and Mercedes within blocks set on fire. Invest in France?

Emmanuel Macron is undoubtedly brilliant. He won all the glittering academic prizes. He had a supersonic ascent into the stratosphere of the French civil service. He even did a spell as a courtier with David de Rothschild’s investment bank, before ascending to minister of the economy under François Hollande, and then winning the most glittering prize of all, the presidency of the republic, aged 39 ¾.

But his hubris, arrogance and almost autistic detachment from the French in the street is in a class with Marie Antoinette. Except that this time around, the courtier whispers, ‘Mr President, the people cannot afford diesel.’ To which the cloth-eared Macron has, in effect replied: ‘Let them buy Teslas.’

Making climate predictions by S.Fred Singer

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/why-the-supreme-courts-2007-decision-labeling-carb/

I have always been reluctant to make any predictions, “especially about the future;” however, I want to make two exceptions.

I predict that the global warming pause of the last 40 years (“hiatus”), the growing “gap” between models and observed temperatures will continue to grow to the year 2100, and likely, beyond.

I also predict that increases in global Sea Level Rise (SLR) will reach about 6 inches by 2100, and contrary to the U.N-Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-2013), I expect there will be no discernible acceleration in this rate of rise.

During the only sure climate warming, 1910-40, the Sea Level Rise increased steadily at 1-2mm/year, as measured by most tidal gauges, with respect to their local shorelines, which did not have enough time to rise or fall.

But we know that water expands when heated. However, the Sea Level Rise did not accelerate during 1910-40.

Something must be offsetting that expansion, which increases rapidly. I believe the offset comes from evaporation, into the atmosphere, with subsequent precipitation turning into ice over the Antarctic. (The area-ratio oceans/Antarctic is 58.)

Following 1910-40, the climate cooled during 1945-75, according to our best data. Again, SLR does not react, but continues to rise at the same steady rate.

This lack of Sea Level Rise acceleration proves that ocean temperature change does not affect SLR — and neither does the steady increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) — contrary to what former Vice President Al Gore and James Hansen, a retired NASA scientist, say. It means that human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, has negligible influence on Sea Level Rise.

Gaza: There Is A Third Choice by Gerald A. Honigman

http://q4j-middle-east.com

Given that leopards don’t change their spots, and Hamas and Co. will never recognize the rights of Jews to a resurrected state in Israel, regardless of size, we’re now ready to proceed…

Ever since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza more than a decade ago, tens of thousands of rockets, mortars, incendiary kites, and other forms of Arab terror have been the response it has received. Israel has maintained a naval blockade to try to prevent large quantities of heavy armaments from arriving from abroad. Indeed, Iranian ships have been intercepted with such cargo aboard. And too many weapons and materials used to kill Jews are still coming in via sophisticated tunnels built with the millions of dollars coming in that were supposed to be spent on improving the lives of Gaza’s people instead.

For Israel, it’s withdrawal from previously Egyptian-occupied Gaza—taken in the June ‘67 War, started by a succession of serious Egyptian and other Arab aggressive actions and existential threats which finally led to an Israeli preemptive strike—Gaza was a test, one the Arabs flunked badly.

Had Gaza responded with efforts at state-building, investments in infrastructure, education, and the overall welfare of its people instead of simply viewing Israel’s withdrawal as a sign of weakness which brought Arab rockets closer to Israeli civilian targets, life would be very different for all by now in very positive ways.

Whatever…Gaza is what it is.

“The Worst Deal in History”: Theresa May’s Surrender by David Brown

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13360/brexit-no-deal

This Brexit “deal” is anything but good for the nation.

This “deal” will cost the British taxpayer £60 billion; require that the British still comply with EU rules without having any say in what those will be, and worst of all, it permits the British to leave the EU only if the EU agrees. It commits the British effectively to subjugation by the EU in perpetuity, with no recourse should the British change their mind. It is a prison. It is also the first step of the EU toward its dream of global governance: unaccountable, untransparent, unelected by the public, and with no way out.

There is still a way out of this mess; an easy alternative. The solution is No Deal. Without any further action, the UK’s membership of the EU will lapse on March 29, 2019, and unless that majority can unite around a viable alternative, we will leave. Even better, according to a House of Lords report, there would be no legal obligation for the UK to make any payment as part of a financial settlement.

But, we have nearly left the EU haven’t we? After all, we keep hearing about this deal. We must be nearly there by now, surely?

Just because some of us are immersed in this stuff, many of us are not. Back in the real world where people are trying to find their bus passes, generally keep warm, or asking who will do the school pick-up, Brexit is not everyone’s first and overwhelming thought.

In the margins, there are the headlines on the six o’clock news telling you Theresa May has a “deal” agreed to by Brussels — and she is off to sell it to the nation.