Displaying the most recent of 91304 posts written by

Ruth King

Kremlin Surprised by Abrupt Cancellation of Trump–Putin Meeting By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-meeting-cancelled-abruptly/

The Kremlin was caught off guard by President Trump’s sudden cancellation of a planned meeting between with Russian president Vladimir Putin, Russian state news agencies said Thursday.

Trump had planned to sit down with Putin at the G-20 summit in Argentina, but canceled the meeting in a tweet Thursday, citing Russia’s Sunday capture of three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors.

“Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia, I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned to cancel my previously scheduled meeting in Argentina with President Vladimir Putin,” Trump wrote.

On Sunday, Russian and Ukrainian forces clashed off the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed by Russia in 2014. Russian border guards opened fire on three Ukrainian ships and captured their crews as they sailed in the Sea of Azov, which is shared by the two nations. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko has asked for NATO ships to be sent to the region to “provide security.”

“Foreign military ships entered Russia’s territorial waters without responding to any requests made by our border guards. Therefore, all actions were taken in strict compliance with the law,” Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the incident.

The cancellation means the Russian president will have “a couple of more hours” for “useful meetings” with other leaders, Peskov was quoted as saying Thursday.

Latest Climate Report Feeds into Alarmist Fearmongering By Nicolas Loris

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/national-climate-assessment-doomsday-scenarios-fearmongering/

The doomsday scenarios in the National Climate Assessment are close to impossible.

The latest National Climate Assessment, released just last week, aims to plant yet another seed of climate catastrophism into the mind of the public. Predictably, its worst-case scenarios got huge play in the media. After all, disaster sells.

But the doomsday scenarios that animated talking heads throughout the weekend aren’t just highly unlikely; they’re close to impossible. For example, the report speculated that climate “inaction” could result in as much as a 10 percent drop in U.S. gross domestic product by 2100. Admittedly, a lot can happen in 82 years. But a 10 percent drop in GDP is more than twice the loss suffered during the Great Recession.

How could things get so bad? Well, put garbage in, and you’ll get garbage out. The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer, calculates these costs by assuming that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by 2100. That mind-boggling assumption is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, it is completely unrealistic.

Other scary projections in the National Climate Assessment rely on a theoretical climate trajectory known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5) — one of four trajectories that climatologists use to estimate the effects of different greenhouse-gas concentrations.

To put it plainly, RCP 8.5 assumes a combination of extreme factors — all bad — that are not likely to all coincide. It assumes “the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.”

CNN Refuses To Condemn CNN Pundit’s Anti-Semitism By David Harsanyi

http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/29/cnn-refuses-to-condemn-cnn-pundits-anti-semitism/

A few years ago, I was admonished by a prominent CNN anchor upset that The Federalist had published an article he claimed was anti-Semitic. The column in question, written by an Orthodox Jew, warned that his co-religionists had become fixated on the largely powerless alt-right while allowing left-wing anti-Semitism to go unchecked in American institutions.

It didn’t hit me at the time to mention that a perfect example of this trend could be found on CNN. Marc Lamont Hill, allegedly “one of the leading intellectual voices in the country,” according to the network, already boasted a long history of using anti-Semitic rhetoric, not only defending terrorists abroad but praising Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan here at home.

On Wednesday, Hill gave speech in front of the United Nations, advocating for violence against the Jewish State and dropping the well-known eliminationist phrase, “from the river to the sea,” a favorite of Hamas and other Islamic terror groups, to the applause of representatives from theocrats and tyrannies around the world.

No one uses this phrase accidentally — certainly not in this context. Certainly not someone smart enough to be considered one of the nation’s leading intellectuals. As Hill pointed out in his ham-fisted attempts to walk back these statements, “from the river to the sea” predates Hamas by 50 years. It also predates the idea of “occupied territories.” The expression, which has existed in various forms since the inception of Israel, was adopted by Yasser Arafat in 1964, before the West Bank came under Israel’s control after repelling an attempt to destroy it.

During the Oslo negotiations, when he finally dropped the idea, Arafat openly admitted that the phrase connoted complete Arab control of the lands between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. It has nothing to do, as Hill laughably contends, with the emergence of a multi-ethnic liberal democratic state. Rather, it is about pushing Jews into the sea.

You’d think this kind of bigoted rhetoric would be highly upsetting to CNN’s sensitive journalists, who are able to ferret out anti-Semitic dog whistles, sometimes real and often imagined, all over the place.

Is Mueller team bludgeoning to get narrative it wants? By Mark Penn,

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/418879-is-mueller-team-bludgeoning-to-get-narrative-it-wants

Either Robert Mueller has the case of the century, tons of incriminating email and is now close to unveiling the collusion with the Russians that has been so widely repeated, or the investigation has come up empty-handed and he is now trying to bludgeon some peripheral figures into plea deals to give the appearance of collusion. It sure has created a lot of public confusion.

While we have to leave the door open to the first theory, recent actions of the special counsel sure look like a last-minute overreach to draw in fringe characters who did little more than make inquiries or tried to seem in the know about the purloined Clinton campaign emails.

To add to these mixed messages, a bombshell came out in the Guardian, that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort allegedly met repeatedly in person with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Such activity would definitely have changed the whole complexion of the case. But with both Assange and Manafort’s denials and a full denial from Manafort’s attorneys, it is more likely the Guardian was “had” with fake Ecuadorian embassy notes. There would be cameras filming everyone going into the embassy, where Assange took asylum in 2012, and holding three in-person meetings would have generated lots of collateral emails and calls — you don’t just show up at an embassy out of the blue and knock on the door. Once examined, the story is, frankly, preposterous.

Is There a 51 Percent Solution for Trump? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/29/is-there-

President Trump’s challenges are not really his economic policies and foreign affairs agendas. For the most part, they are supported by the American people and are resulting in prosperity at home and security abroad.

The economy continues to deliver near-record-low unemployment, wage gains, strong growth and unmatched energy production.

No nation can remain sovereign and secure with insecure borders. There are few ways to stop massive illegal immigration other than building a wall, insisting on employer sanctions and recalibrating legal immigration to be measured, diverse and meritocratic.

For all the hysteria over Trump’s foreign policy, many observers quietly concede that the U.S. is far tougher on Vladimir Putin and Russia now than Obama was in 2016: stronger sanctions, more help to the Ukrainians and greater NATO expenditures.

America had reached a point of no return with China. It either had to renegotiate its enormous trade imbalances and confront regional Chinese aggressions or simply acquiesce to China’s agenda of predetermined global superiority. Yet there were few levers other than temporary trade tariffs to force China to trade equitably and to follow global commercial norms.

The status quo that Trump inherited with North Korean nuclear-tipped intercontinental missiles was an unsustainable proposition. So was an Iran deal that would have guaranteed eventual Iranian nuclear capability.

Yet Trump cannot consistently reach 50 percent approval in the polls. And, like most presidents, he experienced a rebuke in the House during his first midterm elections.

Welcome Back to the Big Bully Boy Scout Show By Roger Kimball

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/29/welcome-back

Like a long-running entertainment, the Boy Scout Show, starring the lugubrious Robert Mueller as the big bully himself, is back. Off the air for some months as the people who brought you “Senator Spartacus Battles Brett Kavanaugh” and “Midterm Mayhem,” along with a special workshop on “How Democrats Can Manufacture Ballots at the Last Moment to Steal an Election,” the Big Bully Boy Scout is once again entertaining thousands across the fruited plain.

Well, it’s entertaining the media pundits in Washington and New York, anyway.

The producers of this interminable entertainment have learned a thing or two from other soap operas. For one thing, some of your favorite characters who had seemed to be written out of the script have made miraculous recoveries and, word has it, are signed for important parts in the entire season that just got underway.

Paul Manafort, for example, whom script writers seemed to have killed off last season, is back with gusto. The Bully Boy Scout and his stable of potty prosecutors (potty prosecutor No. 1: Anthony Weismann, who rumor has it is looking for another major U.S. company to destroy this season, the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen having whetted his appetite) are whining loudly about old Paul.

The season opener brought Manafort back with a bang as headlines blared that he broke his plea agreement with Big Bully Mueller. Part of the excitement revolved around the fact that no one who was not part of the inner circle had any idea what the sharp tooth emissaries of state power were talking about.

The charge was that Manafort lied “to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement.” But “a variety of subject matters” covers a multitude of possibilities, which of course is exactly the point of this Kafkaesque charade in which dozens of people are swept up in the insatiable maw of prosecutorial frenzy.

Keeping the Mentally Ill Out of Jail *****

https://www.city-journal.org/keeping-mentally-ill-out-of-jails

Stephen Eide joins City Journal associate editor Seth Barron to discuss how America’s health-care system fails the mentally ill, and the steps that cities and states are taking to keep the mentally ill out of jail and get them into treatment.
Audio Transcript

Seth Barron: We’re back with another edition of 10 blocks. This is your host, Seth Barron, associate editor of City Journal. People in big cities around the country regularly encounter individuals who are clearly troubled and often seriously mentally ill. Despite decades of work and attention to the issue, our society has not yet come up with an effective way to treat the mentally ill in a humane manner. In fact, many of these people wind up getting arrested, either for minor or serious crimes and then cycle in and out of the jail system, which has become the nation’s de facto mental health treatment facility. I’m joined now by Steven, I’d senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Contributing Editor to City Journal. He writes frequently on the intersecting issues of mental illness and homelessness, and has a piece in the current issue of City Journal entitled “Keeping the Mentally Ill Out of Jail.” Hi Steve. Thanks for joining us.

Stephen Eide: Hey Seth, so nice of you to have me on.

Seth Barron: So Steve, why is this a problem? Why aren’t the mentally ill in mental hospitals?

Stephen Eide: Well, that’s the way that we used to do it. When we talk about the public mental health care system, what the government does to help them mentally ill, it used to do that in only one way. Up until the 1950s, we ran these massive mental asylums, mental institutions that house hundreds of thousands of people. For various reasons, we decided to phase that system out, through a process known as deinstitutionalization. So now for the most part, we try to treat mentally ill, even people with serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, in the community, and outpatient for forms of treatment as much as possible. That has meant a somewhat fragmented system of delivery for mental health care. And oftentimes people have difficulty accessing the treatment that they need for their particular condition. And one of the reasons why we know that this approach does not work very well, why we regularly debate how to reform mental health care is the large numbers of mentally ill people in jails and prisons. In fact, in every state, the largest mental health facility, inpatient mental health facility you could say, is a jail which has a larger patient load than the than the largest state mental hospital at this point. So, this is a problem. In various ways, we try to address this rate of high levels of mental illness amongst our incarcerated population.

Seth Barron: Yeah. But what’s the problem with sending these people to jail if they’ve committed a crime? Are you in favor of an insanity defense?

Stephen Eide: Yes, but for most part, when we talk about the very large population mentally ill behind bars, we’re not talking about people who are guilty by reason of insanity. That’s a real sliver. And we’re really talking about jails, places where people go after they’ve been arrested before their case has been processed, before their offense, has been adjudicated. The idea I think is that most of these people are there because they’re sick, not because they’re criminals. Many of them are picked up for low level offenses, nonviolent offenses, and had they received proper treatment, they wouldn’t be there, but because they’re not receiving treatment, that’s where they wind up and many of them as many kind of journalistic exposes show, such as a series of the Virginia pilot newspaper last year, their condition tends to worsen while they’re behind bars.

AT’s Richard Baehr explains what happened on November 6 VIDEO

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/ats_richard_baehr_explains_what_happened_on_novemebr_6.html

I was not able to attend this year’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, but I heard from a lot of people about the presentation that our chief political correspondent Richard Baehr was a real highlight. He had the unenviable task of following the speech kicking off the program given by Victor Davis Hanson, and did a smashing job of it. He was the lead speaker on what was called the “all-star panel” analyzing the election results.

The other participants, Pat Caddell, Chris Buskirk (editor of American Greatness) and Daniel Greenfield, are among the smartest political thinkers of our time.

Watch for yourself. Richard, as always, cites data in his analysis, and sees things escaping most people.

Toward a Stronger U.S.–Mexico Relationship By Reihan Salam

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/us-mexico-relationship-partnership-immigration-amnesty/

One of my pet causes is promoting a stronger, more constructive partnership with Mexico, and the Central American migrant caravans offer a perfect illustration of why it’s so important. Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador is an avowed leftist, and it is natural that U.S. conservatives would be wary of him. But his desire to improve life for ordinary Mexicans is very much aligned with the U.S. interest in reducing unauthorized immigration, as is his stated commitment to creating opportunities for Central American migrants in Mexico. That is why I strongly believe the Trump administration ought to work closely with the incoming López Obrador government. By discouraging non-meritorious asylum claims, which have surged in recent years, the “Remain in Mexico” plan that is currently being discussed by U.S. and Mexican officials would greatly alleviate the current migration crisis.

The problem, however, is that while Remain in Mexico would clearly redound to the benefit of the U.S., it is essential that Mexicans feel as though they’re benefiting as well. And that is why I’d love to see President Trump offer something tangible to López Obrador that could cement a long-term deal.

What is it that that López Obrador’s government might want from the U.S.? For now, let’s leave aside practical considerations, such as, ahem, finding a proposal that Democrats in the House would be willing to pass and President Trump would be willing to sign. Because, well, we’re in the ideas business, people — and because political realities can change unexpectedly, so it never hurts to think big.

Elsewhere, I’ve argued that we ought to allow U.S. retirees to make use of their Medicare benefits in Mexico. Doing so could both reduce the cost to U.S. taxpayers of caring for older Americans who’d benefit from a lower cost of living, including lower-cost medical and custodial care, and generate low- and mid-skill employment in Mexico by fueling the growth of a labor-intensive eldercare sector. (Unbeknownst to me, Walter Russell Mead, the distinguished historian and Wall Street Journal foreign-affairs columnist, made this case in testimony before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Economic Policy last year.) This could prove a huge boon to Mexico and, as such, it would be a powerful inducement to cooperate with U.S. immigration-enforcement efforts.

Democrats Stand With Foreign Rioters They challenge the use of teargas by border patrol agents under attack. Michael Cutler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272073/democrats-stand-foreign-rioters-michael-cutler

The news footage of the thousands of members of the “migrant” caravan showed young men throwing rocks at U.S. Border Patrol agents and attempting to charge the U.S./Mexican border. The Border Patrol agents were clearly under attack and had only two courses of action to take. The beleaguered agents could step aside or even retreat and permit their positions to be overrun by hundreds or even thousands of illegal aliens among whom are likely criminals, gang members and even those affiliated with terrorism, who would then disperse into the United States where the abject lack of resources would enable them to meld into communities across the country, particularly those jurisdictions that have been proclaimed “Sanctuary Cities.” Alternatively, they could stand their ground and defend the border to prevent the illegal and un-inspected entry of these invaders. In order to protect themselves, however, these agents would need to deploy either lethal or less-than-lethal force.

We all know that the Border Patrol opted to deploy teargas, a less-than-lethal force, that succeeded in repelling the attempted breach of our border, although it was reported that approximately 50 aliens did manage to enter the United States, but were quickly apprehended and taken into custody by the Border Patrol.

It would certainly appear that the agents demonstrated discipline, restraint and professionalism in managing to bring a very dangerous situation under control without the loss of life. Incredibly, rather than commending these valiant federal agents, Democrats and members of the mainstream media have attacked the agents. They complained that these “asylum seeking migrants” should have been quickly processed and permitted to enter the United States. They complained bitterly that the use of teargas was wrong and had the potential to injure women and children who were in the front of the surging mob.