Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

Reading, Writing and Redistribution By Andrew Puzder

I]t’s no secret that today’s college campuses are hotbeds of radicalism. Polls confirm that millennials approve of socialism, and viral videos documenting the outrage spilling out of these “safe spaces” regularly make the news. But the indoctrination of American youth begins, in many cases, well before they ever set foot on a college campus.

Today, subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on capitalism, profit, and economic success occur at all levels of education. Even our youngest students get a daily dosage of anti-capitalist/pro-socialist thought in the classroom. It shouldn’t come as a surprise considering who’s doing the teaching. American teachers are in effect a left-wing interest group and make up a significant part of the Democratic voter coalition.

The nation’s largest teacher’s union, the National Education Association (NEA), made more than $20 million in political contributions in 2015 and 2016, with 90 percent of that amount going to Democrats or left-wing causes. The union believes universal health-care coverage is a “moral imperative” and that “education advocacy and social justice advocacy go hand in hand.”

The second-largest teacher’s union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), donated $12.4 million during the 2015 to 2016 political cycle, with 99.6 percent going to Democrats or liberal causes, and passed a resolution to “take on Wall Street” and “too-big-to-fail banks.”

These days an entire infrastructure exists for left-wing teachers to indoctrinate students in their delusions. More than a dozen national or regional organizations exist to provide guidance and lesson plans to high-school and middle-school teachers interested in teaching students about social justice……

Media indifference to Hillary’s money laundering By Jack Hellner

The media has never shown much interest in Hillary and the DNC laundering over $10 million in campaign funds through a law firm to hide the purpose of creating a fake dossier. Instead, the media is having a collective orgasm about a porn star and a $130,000 payment.

The $130,000 payment appears to be pure blackmail about an unverified seven hour rendezvous that occurred in 2006. Why did Stephanie Clifford, who went by the name Stormy Daniels when having sex on camera for money, wait until less than one month before the election to come forward?

Do people think that if Stormy Daniels had much information that it would have only cost $130,000?

Can the media think of any other porn star who has been treated as pure as the driven snow by the media because of one unsubstantiated claim of a seven-hour rendezvous 12 years ago?

I want to know if Stormy claimed the $130,000 as income on her 2016 tax return. If not, she is a felon but no journalist seems to be interested.

Why hasn’t the media asked the porn star if she kept track of all her encounters with men in such a detailed manner, and if she has had the occasion to extort money from others?

Voices in Support of Trump’s CIA Director Nominee By Elise Cooper

Those against Gina Haspel being confirmed utter the word “torturer” yet refuse to say “Islamist jihadist.” They have a problem with her involvement in the enhanced interrogation program, but are willing to overlook the fact that she has been acting director ever since Mike Pompeo has been confirmed as secretary of state. If she is so horrible, how could they let her be in that position even for a day? The answer, according to 9-11 families, is that she was the shield that kept Americans safe during the turbulent times right after September 11.

David Beamer lost his son, Todd, after United Flight 93 crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside. He expressed the sentiment of all the other 9-11 families interviewed, supporting Gina Haspel as CIA director. “She has given the prime years of her life in service to protect us. Her performance, intellect, dedication, and skills have been recognized in many assignments.”

His answer to those who criticize the enhanced interrogation program: “Unlike my son, none of the enemy died during interrogation. The plans that they executed caused the death of many free and innocent people, just as they intended, as much collateral damage as possible that was their objective. If some uncomfortable questioning leads to uncovering further attacks and lives saved, so be it.”

Gordon Haberman concurs: “Our beautiful, vibrant, loving Andrea was subjected to torture. She was alive after the building was hit and then brutalized in a desperate attempt to escape the inferno. She was then ripped apart as she died. It haunts me till this day. I only hope she was dead before being dismembered in this manner. In seventeen years, they have recovered and identified eleven pieces of her. Do I worry about how those who perpetrated this act were treated after being caught alive and are still alive? No.”

Gina Haspel’s CIA Crucible She supervised legal interrogations of jihadists after 9/11.

Democrats have made a political calculation to delay or challenge every Donald Trump nominee, no matter the merits, and one egregious episode is playing out now. The left is smearing a nominee for CIA Director as a queen of torture, but the White House can win this argument if it rebuts the charges head on.

On Wednesday Gina Haspel will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for a confirmation hearing, and her critics are gearing up for a mugging. Ms. Haspel is largely unknown to the American public: Only recently did the CIA declassify some of the details of her 33-year CIA career. Ms. Haspel started as a case officer in Africa and after assignments around the world in its operations directorate became deputy director in 2017.

Ms. Haspel is the first CIA officer in more than five decades to reach the top position. She won the confidence of former director Mike Pompeo as his deputy, so the agency’s leadership transition would be straightforward.

The problem is that Democrats and Rand Paul of Kentucky are painting her as an unrepentant torturer. The specific rap is that Ms. Haspel in the early 2000s “ran a secret center in Thailand where prisoners were tortured,” as Mr. Paul put it in an op-ed. She is also branded for involvement in destroying tapes of CIA waterboarding.

Americans can disagree about the merits of enhanced interrogation after 9/11, but there’s no debating that the CIA’s interrogation program was legal at the time. The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel produced memos making the legal case. The memos were withdrawn some years later, and Congress has also since changed the law to ban some of the techniques that were used in the immediate wake of 9/11. But Ms. Haspel is not responsible for any legal errors. Her job was to protect the country.

Judge to Mueller: Show Me the Mandate T.S. Ellis reminds the special counsel that his power isn’t ‘unfettered.’

Special counsel Robert Mueller is used to getting kid-glove treatment. That changed Friday in a federal courtroom in Virginia, where Judge T.S. Ellis directed a blunt challenge to the Mueller team prosecuting former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on charges of tax and bank fraud, some of which date back to 2005.

“I don’t see what relation this indictment has with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate. You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge Ellis told Michael Dreeben, who was representing Mr. Mueller in court. “What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

Judge Ellis won’t win a diplomacy-in-judging prize, but his sharp words expose a central problem with the evolution of the Mueller probe. Though he was appointed to investigate collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, Mr. Mueller’s indictments thus far have concerned other matters—lying to the FBI, or in Mr. Manafort’s case actions relating to his business with Ukraine.

Mr. Manafort’s team wants Judge Ellis to throw out the charges on grounds they exceed Mr. Mueller’s original mandate. And the judge’s questions leave the Mueller team in a difficult position. Essentially Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors now have to argue that even if they violated the Justice Department’s rules, it shouldn’t matter.

Mr. Dreeben of Team Mueller responded that the indictment doesn’t exceed the special counsel’s mandate, but the judge wants to see specifically the full and unredacted August 2, 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein saying what Mr. Mueller could pursue. The judge put it this way: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

“Just how much federal waste, duplication and weird or unnecessary spending are your tax dollars funding?”

https://www.openthebooks.com/
The federal government doled out 560,771 grants in fiscal year 2016, totaling $583 billion. On average, each grant exceeded $1 million.
Research shows pork-barrel spending is bipartisan, as the top 50 grant-receiving districts are represented by 27 democrats and 23 republicans. The top 10 congressional districts are evenly split: 5 democrats and 5 republicans.

Consider just a few examples of taxpayer abuse:

*Virtual Reality Platform to Teach Children in China How to Cross the Street – $183,750 from the Department of Health and Human Services funded a virtual reality platform in China to teach safe pedestrian techniqueNew *

*Condom Design with More Lubrication – $200,601 in taxpayer money funded a new condom design that lowers the chance of breakage and increases “satisfaction between partners.”

*Cigar Taste Test – $114,375 funded a study to determine whether cigar flavor affected its addictiveness.

*Sex Ed for Prostitutes in California – $1.5 million funded “safer sex and needle” education for prostitutes in California even though prostitution is illegal in the state.

*Space Racers: An Animated Children’s Cartoon – $2.5 million in NASA funding supported the production of two seasons of a children’s cartoon series about galactic adventures.
These grants flowed to state governments ($505 billion); higher education institutions ($35 billion); for profit organizations including Fortune 100 companies ($2.5 billion); nonprofit organizations ($19.8 billion); and more.

Fortune 100 companies received $3.2 billion in federal grants between fiscal year 2014 and 2016. Boeing can’t argue it needed $774 million in federal grants while reporting nearly $95 billion in 2016 annual revenue.

How can we rein in this insanity? The people must bring the heat, so the politicians see the light on fiscal restraint.

DISPATCHES FROM TOM GROSS

AFTER OVER 50 YEARS

It took over 50 years for the New York Times to apologize for deliberately not reporting on the Holocaust while it was happening.

As I have written before, in the days before TV and the Internet, the New York Times was by far the most important media outlet in America, and had they not covered up the Holocaust throughout the Second World War, public pressure might have grown on FDR to bomb the railway lines to Auschwitz and save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Now that they have finally acknowledged Abbas for the kind of man he is, the New York Times editorial board might ask themselves why for all these years they have been so soft on Abbas.

And even now, the Times editorial on Abbas (below) downplays the problem, as well as the massive level of corruption by him and his sons (who have filled their banks accounts with diverted western aid money) making it sound as if Palestinian corruption is merely result of insufficient oversight.

What Happens When ‘Most People’ Are Right About Iran? Shoshana Bryen

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s declared position is that it does not want nuclear weapons and never has. Which is good, because the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) contains language declaring that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

Which is bad, because Iran cheats.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out in detail how Iran dissembled to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the ostensible authority on Iranian compliance with the JCPOA. Iran had an active nuclear weapons program until 2003. Following the allied invasion of Iraq and fearful of its own future, Iran decided to take a multi-step approach to its nuclear ambitions. While it stopped most of the active weapons program, The New York Times reports that Iran was designing nuclear weapons until 2009. Furthermore, it worked on related capabilities including uranium enrichment and ballistic missile delivery systems (a violation of UN Resolution 2231, as acknowledged by French President Emmanuel Macron). And it kept an enormous “library” of nuclear-related programs and plans.

The JCPOA has not been much of an impediment to Iran’s progress. Despite the literal injunction against nuclear weapons for Iran, the deal (unsigned by anyone on any side) was not designed to end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability, military or civilian. The JCPOA called only for a “pause” in Iran’s enrichment of uranium and inspection of Iran’s self-declared nuclear facilities, plus self-inspection of the suspect Parchin plant. Iran proclaimed its military installations off-limits to inspectors. The restrictions were to sunset a few years down the road, making the “library” of great value to future Iranian scientists restarting the program.

European mockery hides European hypocrisy Victor Sharpe

To paraphrase Benjamin Disraeli: “There are lies, damned lies and European Union hypocrisy in descending order.”

It is as clear as day follows night that the Europeans enjoy and luxuriate in their business dealings with Iran. So when they come, one after the other, to beg President Trump to keep in place – with some modifications – the execrable nuclear deal that Obama and Kerry contrived with the Iranian mullahs, it is in reality to maintain and retain their lucrative and morally reprehensible trade deals with the terror regime, which calls itself the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian mullahs and their armed thugs known as the Revolutionary Guard sought defensively to mock Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech because he exposed them as the dangerous terrorists and congenital liars that they are.

But the majority of the European Union leaders by benefiting from the nuclear deal with Iran have also willingly and covertly created a catastrophic threat to regional and world peace.

Unlike them, any reasonable person knows that Netanyahu’s speech did a great service to Judeo-Christian and Western civilization in proving that Iran’s nuclear weapons program allows Islamic fundamentalism to endanger the entire world.

So now, the fatally biased and left leaning mainstream media, which hates both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, again mocks, as they did when Bibi Netanyahu first warned the world several years ago against the appalling threat to the world from the atrocious Obama nuclear deal with Iran. A deal which both enriches with billions of dollars the terror sponsoring mullahs and helps speed the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Trump’s Three Conditions for Fixing the Iran Deal Are Now Imperative What the Mossad’s Amazing Coup Dictates by Malcolm Lowe

What the assorted apologists for the Iran nuclear deal have failed to grasp is a simple distinction: the difference between suspicions and confirmation. The IAEA based its assessments on “over a thousand pages” of documents; now we have a hundred thousand.

Moreover, these are in effect a hundred thousand signed confessions of the Iranian regime that it intended to create nuclear weapons and load them on missiles manufactured by itself. The miniature minds of the apologists are simply incapable of grasping the historic magnitude of the Mossad’s discovery.

The picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing before two displays, one of file folders and one of compact discs, symbolizes possibly the greatest coup in the history of espionage: the Mossad’s acquisition of the archive of Iran’s program to create nuclear weapons. A runner up for that title might be the advance information about Operation Overlord, the Allied landing in France at the end of World War II, supplied by Elyesa Bazna from Ankara and Paul Fidrmuc from Lisbon.

Nazi Germany failed to act on that information about the intended landing site on D-Day. Instead, it fell victim to false information provided by a supposed spy who was working for the Allies. The parallel to that failure is the present rush of politicians and so-called experts who pretend that the Mossad’s coup tells us nothing new and merely proves that the deal is more justified than ever. They claim, in particular, that before the deal was agreed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) already knew the broad details of what the new information reveals.

What the assorted apologists for the Iran nuclear deal have failed to grasp is a simple distinction: the difference between suspicions and confirmation. The IAEA based its assessments on “over a thousand pages” of documents; now we have a hundred thousand.