Displaying the most recent of 90925 posts written by

Ruth King

The McCabe-Flynn Double Standard One is treated as an anti-Trump martyr, the other as a pariah.

Double standards are a way of life in Washington, but they can still manage to take you aback. Witness the different standards applied to the recent punishments of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Mr. McCabe on March 16, acting on the recommendation of career employees in the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. That followed Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s finding that Mr. McCabe made an unauthorized disclosure to the media about the Hillary Clinton server investigation, but more importantly lacked candor under oath with internal investigators.

Democrats and various media voices described the McCabe firing as vindictive, because it disqualified the former agency No. 2 for early retirement benefits and came amid Donald Trump’s crass attacks on Mr. McCabe.

On Friday Mr. McCabe defended his conduct in the Washington Post. “Amid the chaos that surrounded me,” Mr. McCabe wrote, “I answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not fully accurate or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them.” He says he “may well have been confused and distracted.”

The country will have to wait for Inspector General Horowitz’s report to judge this claim. What we do know is that federal law has a policy of zero tolerance toward anyone who makes false statements to the FBI—a felony charge with up to a five-year prison sentence. Presumably the critics would have preferred the Attorney General to hold Mr. McCabe to a lower standard than that for average citizens.

Compare the conventional wisdom after the McCabe firing to its efficient disposal of Michael Flynn. In January 2017, Mr. Flynn denied to the FBI that he had discussed Obama-era sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. As incoming National Security Adviser, Mr. Flynn would have known the government was monitoring Mr. Kislyak’s phone, which makes it unlikely he’d intentionally lie.

He agreed to talk to the FBI’s agents with no counsel present. And in March 2017 former FBI Director James Comey told the House Intelligence Committee that the two agents who interviewed Mr. Flynn concluded he hadn’t lied but had forgotten exactly what he’d discussed.

Still, what he told the FBI was false, and in December Special Counsel Robert Mueller extracted a guilty plea from Mr. Flynn on the charge of lying to the FBI. There is reason to believe Mr. Flynn took the deal to end the threat of financial ruin, or the prosecution of his son, Michael, Jr. Be that as it may, it’s hard not to notice that in what is considered polite Washington society today, Mr. McCabe has been elevated as a martyr to the anti-Trump cause, while Mr. Flynn’s fall is necessary justice.

No one knows where the Mueller investigation is going to end up. But the country would be better able to absorb the result if it believed that Washington was playing it straight, and not playing favorites.

Dr. Jordan Peterson, full speed: A new book By John Dale Dunn

Jordan Peterson, a clear-eyed traditionalist advocate on political and social issues, has inspired and compelled sensible people to support his efforts. I predicted back in January that he would be subjected to the intolerant thugs of Canadian and international speech police totalitarianism, and so it goes.

On March 5 at a Queen’s University (founded in 1841 in Kingston, Ontario), he was an invited speaker for the law school-sponsored inaugural lecture in a series intended to promote liberty. Dr. Peterson, professor at the University of Toronto, presented by the dean of law, discussed “The Rising Tide of Compelled Speech in Canada” to a packed house of almost a thousand. A leftist thug rent-a-mob started disruption proceedings, banging on walls and even breaking a window.

Dr. Peterson’s eloquence, mastery of the science of psychology and sociology and social science research, and insight are extraordinary. I recently downloaded his new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (2018 Random House, Canada), which puts to print his commitment to moral philosophy and social science. He reminds the reader of the teachings of many – Confucius, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Aristotle – with an emphasis on his study of the classics from many cultures along modern neuroscience and the social sciences. This is scholarly but commonsense advocacy of the Peterson canon of virtuous adulthood and good citizenship. He teaches what parents hope to be proud of in their children.

In the foreword to the book, Norman Doidge, M.D., psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, colleague, and friend of Peterson, provides a great deal of information on why Peterson is so well received and so energetically committed to fight the speech police and totalitarianism. Doidge relates that Peterson, a child of the isolated and cold Fairview, Alberta, married his hometown sweetheart and went on to great academic success at Harvard and then the University of Toronto. On the way, he worked in all kinds of blue-collar jobs and never forgot his roots. Doidge describes the unique goodness (yes, I said goodness) of Peterson and his indomitable desire to stand for individual freedom and liberty.

Van Jones Blasts Left Over Constant Anti-Trump Hysterics By Tom Knighton see note please

Van Jones was supposed to be Obama’s “green jobs czar” but resigned in controversy after iit was disclosed that he signed a letter suggesting that George Bush might have knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen….rsk
To say that Van Jones isn’t a fan of the current president would be like saying Lena Dunham isn’t the most attractive woman to run around on cable TV with no clothing on. He’s a big old lefty and there’s not really any doubt about where he stands.

Which makes it all the more important when he speaks the actual truth.

While on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Jones commented about the left’s constant hysterics over everything President Trump does.

“I just have to say, liberals and progressives spend so much time freaking out about every tweet, everything that Donald Trump does,” Jones argued. “Every day is Armageddon, that then when somebody comes in who might bring us Armageddon, we’re out of adjectives.”

When I find myself agreeing with Van Jones, something is very wrong with the world.

I’m not a fan of President Trump. I like some things he’s done, I haven’t liked others. However, the “we’re all gonna die” thing has been a constant gag. Everything Trump does is going to kill us all… only, it hasn’t. It won’t.

But the constant hysterics make it difficult to respond to actual issues effectively. It’s difficult because so many of us have already heard all the hysteria. It’s like the little boy who cried wolf. You do it enough and no one wants to listen.

The sad thing is, I do think there may well be a time when Trump does something that may actually warrant hysterics. But CNN and company will have already cried wolf so many times that no one will listen to them.

Sell Taiwan F-35s to Deter China’s ‘Aggressive Military Posture,’ GOP Senators Urge Trump By Bridget Johnson

WASHINGTON — Two GOP senators urged President Trump in a letter today to sell new F-35s to Taiwan “as a necessary deterrent to China’s aggressive military posture across the Asia-Pacific region.”

Trump began his presidency by taking a call from Taiwan’s president that infuriated China, but has drawn closer to the “very special man,” as he calls Chinese President Xi Jinping, throughout his term — his tariffs announcement last week notwithstanding.

The administration’s Taiwan policy has been hazy, prompting Congress to try to push Trump to support the island over the PRC.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) wrote to Trump that the administration should “commit to providing new, U.S. made fighters to aid in Taiwan’s self-defense.”

“Since the early 1950s, the United States has promoted peace by ensuring that Taiwan has the means to defend itself. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), states that the US should ‘maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan,’ which codifies the U.S. policy of robust support for Taiwan’s self-defense into law,” the senators noted.

“After years of military modernization, China shows the ability to wage war against Taiwan for the first time since the 1950s,” they added. “However, with your leadership, it is possible to help Taiwan remain a democracy, free to establish a relationship with China that is not driven by military coercion. Taiwan has a legitimate requirement to field a modern fighter fleet to address a myriad of defense contingencies. Therefore, Taiwan is requesting U.S. support in their procurement of the F-35B.”

The U.S. sold 150 F-16s to Taiwan in 1993, and the island currently has approximately 144 F-16 fighters in its inventory. Cornyn and Inhofe noted that “15 are in the U.S. for training, and an additional 24 will be offline on a rolling basis in their ongoing upgrade program that runs through 2023,” so “at a reasonable operational rate, Taiwan is likely able to field only 65 F-16s at any given time in defense of the island… not enough to maintain a credible defense.”

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen wants to buy the F-35B vertical take-off and landing aircraft to bolster Taiwan’s air defense. CONTINUE AT SITE

“One American’s View of Europe” Sydney M. Williams

These thoughts are those of an observer, not an expert. They reflect my reading of current events, which convince me that the people of Europe are vulnerable to a loss of basic rights. My concern is for the kind of omniscient government James Madison warned against in Federalist No. 47. I appreciate the success the international system in Europe has had in the years since World War II – how it avoided wars that devastated the first half of the Twentieth Century, how it largely eradicated the poverty and disease that are war’s accompaniments, and how it helped democratize former totalitarian states. Nevertheless, there is no alpha and no omega to history’s timeline. The “deep state” that is the EU grows larger and more intrusive. As well, bad men and women lurk on sidelines, biding their time, waiting for opportunities to seize power. It is the threat of authoritarianism that concerns, no matter whether it emerges through an individual or via the state, or whether it comes from the Right or the Left.

Something is wrong in Europe. If today’s EU were so desirable, would Brexit have happened? If the EU is such a positive factor, why do administrators in Brussels feel a need to punish the UK for leaving? Why do they rail so aggressively against those who disagree with their concept of union? Why have populist parties risen, like Podemos in Spain, the Five-Star movement in Italy and the Freedom Party in Austria? Consider the political malfunctioning in Germany and Poland. The glue that binds the Union has weakened. Why?

Bureaucrats in Brussels have become more autocratic, in terms of demands on member states. For example, it is estimated that between 60% and 65% of laws, regulations and directives governing the British people were made in Brussels. London and other democratic capitals have become vassals to the EU, in terms of borders, trade, rules, regulations and laws. On the other hand, disintegration of the Union, it is feared, could lead to the nationalist policies that helped start the First World War, the depression that followed and the Second War. No sensible person wants to re-create another period similar to 1914-1945.

The catalyst for the discontent has been immigration on an unprecedented scale, affecting the economy, along with cultural and democratic institutions. It is true that most refugees have a humanitarian need. They come from towns and cities devastated by Islamic extremists – principally Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq in the Middle East; Eritrea, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan in North and Sub-Saharan Africa. But, it is also true that among those refugees are radicalized young men.

Moscow Notebook By:Srdja Trifkovic

Russia’s presidential election on March 18 passed without great excitement, since Putin’s victory was never in doubt. He won 77 percent of the vote, with just over two-thirds of eligible voters taking part. While a few reported irregularities have received extensive publicity in the Western media, this result fairly accurately reflects the country’s current mood.

In Russia elections are impacted by foreign and security issues to a much greater extent than in the U.S. Putin’s numbers were helped by Britain’s unprecedented anti-Russian campaign following the poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury on March 4. The government in London promptly accused the Russian government and Putin personally of ordering the attack. A week before the election it expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and Moscow retaliated by ordering out the same number of Britons. Most ordinary Russians believe—not without reason—that they are subjected to serious external challenges, and that the incumbent is better equipped to deal with them than any likely alternative.

As for the Salisbury case, ordinary Russians make the common sense argument that had the authorities intended to kill Skripal as an example to other potential traitors, they could have done so during his four years in Russian jail 2006-2010. Those with security background insist that Russia (and the USSR before 1991) has never targeted an exchanged spy, that intelligence services on both sides would be loath to jeopardize the institution of swaps; and that there was no motive to kill Skripal almost eight years after the swap and three months before the 2018 FIFA World Cup which Russia is due to host in June and July. It seems clear that had a military grade nerve gas been used (and Britain has refused to provide any samples thus far), Skripal and his daughter would have died instantly. Finally, false flag operation is a distinct possibility: the gas allegedly used (“Novichok”) is actually a family of nerve agents which has been known for decades and could have been produced by several other countries.

The second factor favoring Putin’s victory was Russia’s improving economic situation. The mix of Western sanctions imposed in 2014 and the fall of crude oil prices (from $108 per barrel in September 2013 to under $30 in February 2016) caused a two-year period of stagflation, but Russia’s economy started growing again in 2017. It is no longer dependent on foreign liquidity, exchange rates are stable, the fiscal deficit is under 2% percent of GDP, and inflation of 4% is at an all-time low. Putin’s major domestic challenge will be to direct more private investment into manufacturing, and especially import substitution ventures. At the moment, Russia’s share of investment in GDP is only 20%, less than one-half of China’s 43%. On current form the country may be able to catch up with the global growth rate of three percent, but not before 2021.

The Ideological Crackup By Herbert London

The ideological crack-up between Left and Right was readily apparent when thousands of students marched against guns – guns that killed 17 Florida students in a violence that would awaken passion in even the most cold blooded. What it means, however, is seemingly less significant than the symbolism. Educators and politicians who should know better encouraged students to engage in protests. Mayor De Blasio in New York said students would not be punished if they left their desks to participate in the rallies.

Surely press notices and most spokesmen congratulated the students on their public consciousness. Yet for anyone observing this event without an ideological lens, you might ask what was going on. Students were demonstrating against guns, and the NRA was generally the target, but what was the legislative goal, a modification in the Second Amendment? Guns can kill, but so can knives. A gun in the hands of St. Francis is not a weapon. Therefore, the gun owner is the critical factor in this equation. All parties agree that a person with mental illness should not have a gun. All parties agree that criminals should not be able to obtain guns. Surely on those matters alone consensus can be achieved. But this is not the real issue.

These demonstrations are actually the full-throated anger of the Left organized in large part by instructors who are manipulating students during this period of grief and rage. Suppose, for the sake of argument instructors were to call for a national rally to protest abortions and the one million fetuses killed each year. Would there be any response?

Why John Bolton is no warmonger Roger Kimball

“He is a forthright man of peace who understand the dangers of pacifism in a world where evil is rife. He would applaud, and rightly, the Roman military historian Vegetius: si vis pacem, para bellum: ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’.

The hysteria from the Left over Donald Trump’s appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor to replace Lt. General H. R. McMaster has been partly hilarious, partly alarming to behold. From The Guardian in this country to The New York Times, CNN, Slate, Salon, and beyond in the United States, we are presented with a scarecrow figure who makes Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove look like Albert Schweitzer after a nap. ‘Yes’, screamed an editorial in The New York Times, ‘John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous’. Bolton is a ‘hawk’s hawk’, an ‘extreme ideologue’ and ‘warmonger’ whose appointment ‘scares people’ and ‘puts us on a path to war’. Adds Fred Kaplan, writing in Slate, ‘and it’s fair to say [sure it is, Fred] that President Donald Trump wants us on that path’. In short, ‘the time to panic is now’. Argh!!!

Hysteria has its pleasures. But if we step outside the echo chamber of this feverish anti-Trump mad house, we soon discover that John Bolton is not the reincarnation of Genghis Khan. On the contrary, he is an informed and thoughtful commentator on international affairs. The over-caffeinated chihuahuas yapping at his heels are in a panic because he doesn’t like the ‘deal’ (what some of us would describe as the craven capitulation) that Barack Obama made with Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Obama shovelled more than a billion dollars in cash to the Mullahs and said in effect ‘pretty please do not make any nuclear bombs’. The New York Times, in one of its excoriations of John Bolton, wrote that ‘The Iran deal has substantially halted the nuclear program and needs to be maintained’. But anyone not blinded by ideology knows that the third thing the Iranian leaders do each morning, after proclaiming ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’, is to chivvy their scientists to get on with their work making a bomb with which to obliterate the Zionist entity and threaten the Great Satan.

Trump, Adultery, and Morality By Dennis Prager

Some years ago, I wrote a column about adultery and politicians. In light of the Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal interviews concerning their alleged (and probable) affairs with President Donald Trump, it is time to revisit the subject.

I do not agree with those—Right or Left, religious or secular—who contend that adultery invalidates a political or social leader. It may invalidate a pastor, priest or rabbi—because a major part of their vocation is to be a moral/religious model, and because clergy do not make war, sign national budgets, appoint judges, run foreign policy or serve as commanders in chief. In other words, unlike your clergyman or clergywoman, almost everything a president does as president affects hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of non-Americans. If a president is also a moral model, that is a wonderful bonus. But that is not part of a president’s job description.

But even anti-Trump conservatives still assert character matters a great deal in a president and other political leaders.

There are two problems with that argument.

The most obvious is that adultery is frequently an inaccurate measure of a person’s character. Indeed, many otherwise great men have been unfaithful to their spouse. And while it is always a sin—the Sixth Commandment doesn’t come with an asterisk—there are gradations of sin.

Passover Guide for the Perplexed, 2018 (A US Angle) Ambassador (Ret.) Yoram Ettinger

1. According to the late Prof. Yehudah Elitzur, one of Israel’s pioneers of Biblical research, the Exodus took place in the second half of the 15th century BCE, during the reign of Egypt’s Amenhotep II. Accordingly, the 40-year national coalescing of the Jewish people – while wandering in the desert – took place when Egypt was ruled by Thutmose IV. Joshua conquered Canaan when Egypt was ruled by Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV, who were preoccupied with domestic affairs, refraining from expansionist operations. Moreover, letters which were discovered in Tel el Amarna, the capital city of ancient Egypt, documented that the 14th century BCE Pharaoh, Amenhotep IV, was informed by the rulers of Jerusalem, Samaria and other parts of Canaan, about a military offensive launched by the “Habirus” (Hebrews and other Semitic tribes), which corresponded to the timing of Joshua’s offensive against the same rulers. Amenhotep IV was a determined reformer, who introduced monotheism, possibly influenced by the ground-breaking and game-changing Exodus. Further documentation of the Exodus is provided by Dr. Joshua Berman of Bar Ilan University.

2. The message of Passover/Exodus is dominated by the theme of liberty, which guided the Early Pilgrims and the Founding Fathers of the USA. Liberty was doubly appreciated in the aftermath of the 210-year-slavery of the Jewish people in Egypt. The strategic goal of the Passover concept of liberty was not revenge, nor imperialistic, nor subordination of the Egyptian people, but the enshrining of communal/collective liberty throughout humanity.

3. The essence of Biblical liberty is to contribute to – rather than take from – the community. Liberty is not a mere privilege; it is, primarily, a commitment undertaken by the individual. Instead of the classic form of slavery, liberty means the enslavement of the individual to collective responsibility – which entails obligations – not to idleness, personal desires and whims.