Displaying the most recent of 91287 posts written by

Ruth King

John Brennan in Panic Mode Former CIA chief faces the legal consequences of his dirty deeds. Joseph Klein

John Brennan, director of the CIA during the Obama administration, is running for cover. He could be facing criminal charges for his role in the Deep State cabal that sought to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and then to undermine the legitimacy of the duly elected president of the United States, Donald Trump. Acting in desperation as the noose tightens around him, Brennan tweeted a warning to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, claiming they will “bear the majority of the responsibility of the harm done to our democracy” if they don’t stop President Trump from continuing along his “disastrous path.” The “disastrous path” to which Brennan took such umbrage was the president’s own tweet on Sunday, in response to news reports that an FBI informant was hovering around members of Mr. Trump’s campaign and asking them questions under false pretenses. President Trump demanded “that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

Brennan is evidently unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution. Here is a simple explanation for the man who once voted for the Communist Party candidate for president, Gus Hall, even though Hall by then had been a long-time enthusiastic supporter of the Communist Soviet Union’s hardline expansionist policies. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Under Article II of the Constitution, Mr. Brennan, the president of the United States is the head of the Executive Branch. The president, therefore, is acting within his constitutional authority to order the Department of Justice to undertake an investigation of possible abuse of power for political purposes within the Executive Branch over which he now presides.

Did the Obama Administration Spy on Michael Flynn? By Julie Kelly

In his controversial tweet on Sunday, President Trump indicated that he would direct the Justice Department to investigate “whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes—and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

Is the president hinting that he thinks Michael Flynn, a top campaign consultant who briefly served as Trump’s national security advisor, was the target of FISA-authorized surveillance during the campaign or presidential transition—or during both?

Recently released documents—the final House Intelligence Report and the trove of memos authored by former FBI Director James Comey—contain clues to support that suspicion. In his memo dated February 8, 2017, Comey relays this exchange at the White House with then Chief of Staff Reince Priebus:

He then said he wanted to ask me a question and I could decide whether it was appropriate to answer. He then asked, “Do you have a FISA order on Mike Flynn?” I paused for a few seconds and then said that I would answer here, but that this illustrated the kind of question that had to be asked and answered through established channels. I said the answer [redacted]. I then explained that the normal channel was from DOJ leadership to the WH counsel about such things.

The next sentence is redacted. Comey continues: “I explained that it was important that communications about any particular case go through that channel to protect us and to protect the WH from any accusations of improper influence.”

Flynn resigned on February 13 amid reports he lied to Vice President Mike Pence about phone conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016. (Details about the call were illegally leaked to the Washington Post in January 2017. The leaker has not yet been identified or charged.)

So why did the Justice Department redact Comey’s answer? It’s fair to assume that if his answer was “No,” there would be no need to conceal it. Also, why would Comey instruct Priebus to follow proper “channels” of inquiry to avoid accusations of “improper influence” if the answer was no? And not just a regular “No.” More like an Are-you-fricking-kidding-me-of-course-not! kind of “No.”

The unredacted version of the House Intelligence Committee’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, released earlier this month, also dropped a little bombshell about Flynn.

Hillary Clinton and the fall of Yale and Harvard By Patricia McCarthy

Why on Earth would Yale invite Hillary Clinton, the whiniest woman on the planet to speak at its commencement? Did the administrators not have advance knowledge of her psychosis? Her address to Yale grads was all about her: her loss, her anger at those who did not vote for her. She is, without a doubt, the sorest of sore losers.

Hillary quoted Dickens when bemoaning the constitutional crisis she herself has created by inventing the Trump-colluded-with-Russia hoax. She is the person who colluded with Russia in numerous ways. It was Hillary who saw to it that the U.S. sold twenty percent of our uranium to Russia. She is the one who benefited financially, to the tune of $145M, from that deal. She is the one who commissioned and paid for the fake dossier on Trump and then had her like-minded felons in the Deep State use it to spy on the Trump campaign and probably everyone within it. It was she who was and is affiliated with Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie, the law firm that facilitated much of the skullduggery perpetrated on her behalf. It was she who sabotaged Bernie Sanders during the primaries. And looking back, it was she who made a mess of Libya and is responsible for the deaths at Benghazi. The complete list of her failures and crimes against the nation is too long to include here.

Mrs. Clinton and her husband are the most corrupt people in U.S. history to dominate a political party. They have become fabulously wealthy by selling access to U.S. government favors and via other unscrupulous schemes. And still she whines. She wanted more; she wanted the presidency and believed with absolute certainty that it was hers for the taking.

Hillary is clearly convinced that her defeat in the 2016 election was a near-death blow to American democracy. In her view, Trump’s victory is an assault on our republic. She is still furious at all the deplorables who did not vote for her. She has no concern for those of us who are victims of and are outraged at the senseless crimes committed by illegal aliens protected by sanctuary cities or the businesses shut down by the tyranny of the diversity police.

Jihad via the Ballot Box By Eileen F. Toplansky

In his 2008 book titled Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad, Andrew C. McCarthy sounded the alarm when he described a “zealous international network of warriors dead certain that history and Allah are on their side.” Since then, this network has not diminished; it seems to metastasize in every part of the world.

Violent jihad by its nature makes headlines and causes grief and anger. It also gives resolve to those who would fight back. Law enforcement will track down the perpetrators and bring them to court or kill them outright. But a far more dangerous and insidious undermining of America continues unabated. It seeks to ultimately destroy the foundations of American values.

It is important to see the larger picture of what the Islamic jihadists assiduously work to achieve in this country. Connecting the dots irrefutably proves their game plan.

It begins with immigration, or hijra. I have often wondered why a group of people accustomed to very warm climates continues to settle in extremely cold geographical areas. Consider that the Nordic countries now boast a growing Muslim population, and Minnesota is now host to Somali Muslims. In war lingo, this could be construed as a siege, whereby a country’s borders are sealed off by the enemy…with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside.

Hijra is immigration by jihadists who seek to populate and dominate new lands. They have absolutely no intention of assimilating peacefully in a new host nation. In fact, they scorn the host nation’s traditions and legal systems. Rather, hijrah is a means to “colonize and then transform non-Muslim target societies since the ultimate goal is global submission to sharia law.” So Sweden, under the much vaunted multicultural umbrella, opened its borders to Muslim immigration. Today, it is the rape capital of the West.

Advice to New Grads: Scale or Bail Want to change the world? Don’t bother volunteering—get a real, ‘boring’ job.By Andy Kessler

Dear Grads: How can you make an impact on this world? Michael Keaton told Kent State students, “I’m Batman.” Ronan Farrow encouraged Loyola Marymount’s class of 2018 to “trust that inner voice.” Human-rights lawyer Amal Clooney told Vanderbilt grads last week, “Courage is needed more than ever.”

Maybe you’re looking for something less vacuous than warmed over “Wizard of Oz” themes? If so, put down your JUUL vape pen, unplug from “Fortnite,” tuck in your “I Am the Change” shirt, and listen up. Scale or bail.

Many of you graduates think you want socially conscious careers—giving back, fighting injustice and making a difference. “Well, you know, we all want to change the world.” You want to reduce inequality, end poverty, comfort the homeless, expand human dignity. Guess what? Me too! But you’re going about it the wrong way.

Some 44% of millennials believe they do more to support social causes than the rest of their family, according to the 2017 Millennial Impact report. If you’re volunteering at shelters or working for most nonprofits, that’s all very nice, but it’s one-off. You’re one of the privileged few who have the education to create lasting change. It may feel good to ladle soup to the hungry, but you’re wasting valuable brain waves that could be spent ushering in a future in which no one is hungry to begin with.

There’s a word that was probably never mentioned by your professors: Scale. No, not the stuff on the bottom of your bong or bathtub. It’s the concept of taking a small idea and finding ways to implement it for thousands, or millions, or even billions. Without scale, ideas are no more than hot air. Stop doing the one-off two-step. It’s time to scale up.

I hear you talking about food deserts and the need for urban eco-farms to enable food justice. You certainly have the jargon down. You can hoe and sickle and grow rutabagas to feed a few hungry folks, but then it’s really all about you. A better option: Find a way to revamp food distribution to lower prices. Or reinvent how food is grown and enriched to enable healthier diets. Call it a Neo-Green Revolution.

Putting a New Squeeze on Iran Pompeo lays out a strategy of severe economic pressure.

Hard on the heels of U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear accord, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday laid out a new strategy to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional imperialism. The U.S. plans to impose severe financial and economic pressure while offering Iran better diplomatic and commercial relations if it changes its threatening course.

In 2015 Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made a $100 billion bet that their Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would end Iran’s nuclear program while transforming the Islamic Republic into a responsible member of the world community. The wager didn’t pay.

While delaying its nuclear dream a few years, Iran has spent the windfall from sanctions relief financing proxy wars through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen. The Iranian economy languished, and Iranians suffered. “ Qasem Soleimani has been playing with house money that has become blood money,” Mr. Pompeo said about Iran’s Qods Force general.

The new U.S. strategy promises to restore a hard economic vise that will squeeze Iran’s funds for adventurism. The sanctions regime in place before the nuclear deal already is returning, Mr. Pompeo said, and new penalties will be “the strongest sanctions in history.” Iran will have to choose: “Either fight to keep its economy off life support at home or keep squandering precious wealth on fights abroad. It will not have the resources to do both.”

Critics insist the U.S. can’t replicate the previous sanctions because the Europeans, Russians and Chinese aren’t supportive. The European Union in particular is exploring ways to circumvent U.S. sanctions, but that is harder than it sounds. As Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg note nearby, the Iran economy is under pressure and its currency is reeling.

Campus Censorship Hits Pro-Lifers Hard When antifa issued threats to my student group, Cal State Fullerton did nothing. By Kristan Hawkins

Ms. Hawkins is president of Students for Life of America, which has more than 1,200 chapters on college and high school campuses.

Free speech is out of fashion on college, university and even high school campuses, and pro-life students are hit especially hard. Putting aside any feelings about the issue of abortion, consider that pro-life students increasingly find their ability to make their case suppressed by fellow students and administrators. With more than 1,200 college and high school chapters, Students for Life of America works daily addressing obstacles to student speech. Among them:

• Vandalism and theft of displays and signs. Defacing displays like a Cemetery of the Innocents, set in remembrance of lives lost to abortion, occurs regularly, and was captured on video recently at the Miami University of Ohio. Chalking is a popular way to express thought peacefully. Recently a California State University, Fresno, professor was required to pay $17,000 and undergo free-speech training for destroying student pro-life chalk messages and encouraging his students to do the same.

• A tax on speech in the form of selectively assessed security fees. When a Students for Life chapter at the University of Michigan invited Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King to speak, the school sent the students a bill for more than $800. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys intervened, noting: “The government may not charge speakers for the security costs driven by listeners’ response to that speech.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Daryl McCann Bernard Lewis and the Dangerous Creed of Freedom (October 2012)

In his memoir Notes on a Century, Bernard Lewis observes that it has become “fashionable to assume that everything Western is bad”. Lewis, nonetheless, allows himself to make one “blatantly chauvinistic statement” by claiming that “the quest for knowledge” is a “peculiarly Western feature”. Throughout the past half-millennium, from the time of the earliest European Orientalists, the intellectual curiosity of Western philologists, adventurers and scholars has transcended provincialism, religion, sentiment and compliance. Notes on a Century goes a long way towards explaining why this phenomenon appears to be under threat, dwelling as we do in an era of “intellectual conformism unknown for centuries”.

Bernard Lewis, speaker of some thirteen languages, has been a leading Western authority on the Middle East for an astonishing seven decades, since the publication of The Origins of Ismailism in 1940: a colossus in his field, impossibly brilliant and an intellect of the highest order. The late Edward Said, one-time professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, described Lewis in 2003 as “a tireless mediocrity”. This says more about the founder of post-colonial studies than it does about his adversary. A more accurate description of Lewis was made by a Muslim critic in 1966: “[He is] either a candid friend or an honest enemy and in any case one who disdains to distort the truth.” Lewis, now ninety-five years old, wants to be regarded as a dedicated and single-minded scholar who successfully avoided the pitfalls of both polemics and apologetics. Despite (or perhaps because of) bouts of celebrity, and interludes as an adviser to various heads of state including the United States of America and Turkey, Lewis has his Western critics. Most—but certainly not all—hail from the ranks of post-colonial studies.

Illegal Immigration: A Tale Of Two Countries (Canada vs. U.S.) Hypocrisy thrives in the immigration debate. Michael Cutler

A sign has been posted on the border that separates the United States from one of its two geographical neighbors. Its message is clear and unmistakeable. It reads simply:

Stop

It is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry.

You will be arrested and detained if your cross here.

That sign was not posted on the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico on the southern U.S. border.

You may also be surprised to know that the sign was not erected by President Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

It was not erected by any official of the DHS such as the Director of the U.S. Border Patrol, nor was the sign posted by any official of any government agency in the United States on the federal, state or local level.

That sign was not posted by any civilian group in the United States angered and frustrated by the decades old failures of the United States to secure its borders against the entry of international terrorists, transnational criminals, and foreign workers who routinely displace American and lawful immigrant workers and suppress the wages of those Americans and lawful immigrants who are fortunate enough to not lose their jobs to the foreign interlopers.

That sign was, however, posted by Canadian authorities on Canada’s southern border to deter aspiring illegal aliens in the United States from entering Canada illegally.

Illegal immigration from the United States to Canada has increased, as the Canadian newspaper, The Star, reported on May 14, 2018: Number of asylum seekers jumped 30 per cent in April.

The Star report noted that while in a typical month an estimated 1,500 illegal aliens enter Canada from the United States (without inspection) in April 2,479 had arrived in Quebec.

The Obamas Sign Multi-Year Deal with Netflix to Produce Shows and Movies By Jack Crowe

Netflix announced Monday that Barack and Michelle Obama have signed “a multi-year agreement” to produce television shows and movies for the company’s rapidly growing line of original content.

The Obamas are slated to produce scripted and unscripted series as well as documentaries and feature films, according to a Netflix tweet announcing the deal.“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” the former president said in a statement. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos said in a statement that the Obamas “are uniquely positioned to discover and highlight stories of people who make a difference in their communities and strive to change the world for the better.”

Obama has frequently bemoaned the polarized state of the media eco-system since leaving office. A New York Times report published in March indicated that the Obamas will avoid overtly partisan programming in favor of a broader aspirational message. One project reportedly under consideration would feature debates over contentious national issues moderated by the former president.The Obamas’ compensation remains undisclosed but the couple were reportedly paid $60 million for their joint memoir, indicating that taste-makers believe consumers are eager for Obama-produced content.