Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

CHARLOTTE’S NEWS WEB

https://townhall.com/columnists/jamesgottry/2019/09/14/socialism-offers-security-of-state-control-but-demands-surrender-of-individual-responsibility-n2553010

Socialism Offers ‘Security’ of State Control But Demands Surrender of Individual Responsibility

James Gottrey

Throughout the United States, socialism is enjoying a fresh wind of popularity. An April 2019 Gallup survey found that 43% of Americans believe socialism would be “a good thing” for the country (up from 25% in 1942). A full 47% of Americans say they would vote for a socialist presidential candidate. With those numbers, it should come as no surprise that in 2016, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (America’s most popular “democratic socialist”) attracted more than 13 million votes during the Democratic primaries. More than 2 million of those voters were under the age of 30.

 

www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/09/14/doj-files-devastating-brief-exposing-jerry-nadlers-impeachment-inquiry-scam/

DOJ Files A Devastating Brief Exposing Jerry Nadler’s Impeachment Inquiry Scam

RedState.com

Recently, I covered Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee passing rules for an “impeachment inquiry.” As some of us have speculated for months now, this was simply an attempt at stealth impeachment, i.e. getting to use the benefits of impeachment (grand jury access, increased subpoena power, etc.) without having too actually pass articles of impeachment.

The Impeachment Motions: Jerry Nadler deserves an Oscar for pretending his probe is serious.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-impeachment-motions-11568416067

Democratic presidential candidates issued a gusher of words over three hours Thursday night, but one they didn’t utter was “impeachment.” That was no accident. The polls show the cause is a political loser, and maybe someone should tell Jerrold Nadler.

The House Judiciary Chairman is still trying to persuade voters that he has Donald Trump in his impeachment sights. Russian collusion wasn’t real, obstruction of justice didn’t fly, and payments to Stormy Daniels sound too much like lying about sex (and Bill Clinton ). So now Mr. Nadler is back to the old stand of arguing that Mr. Trump is enriching himself while in office.

This isn’t likely to go anywhere either, but it’s worth parsing the latest accusations to explain why. Democrats are investigating whether the Defense Department has been propping up struggling Glasgow Prestwick airport in Scotland to help the nearby Trump Turnberry golf resort. In a letter to then Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings noted the Pentagon has bought $11 million of fuel from Prestwick since October 2017. He also demanded details about a few Air Force crew members who stayed at Turnberry on a stopover this year.

The Prestwick airport, which is owned by the Scottish government, is struggling and its presence helps the Trump resort. But the Pentagon signed its contract with Prestwick in October 2016—before Mr. Trump was elected. Maybe Mr. Nadler should call Barack Obama as a witness.

As for the Turnberry stopover, the Air Force says seven active-duty and National Guard members stayed at the Trump resort on the way to Kuwait but stayed at a Marriott on the way back. The Air Force says the crew made its reservation through a defense travel system and used the “closest available” and “least expensive” accommodations to the airfield; the Trump resort was cheaper than the Marriott; and both properties were under the per diem travel rate of $166 a night. The Air Force says crews have stayed in the area 659 times over the past four years, and only 6% went to Turnberry.

Sorry Dems, The Air Force Deal To Refuel Near Trump’s Scottish Resort Was Made Under Obama By Matt Margolis

https://pjmedia.com/trending/sorry-dems-the-air-force-deal-to-refuel-near-trumps-scottish-resort-was-made-under-obama/

In April, the House Oversight Committee began investigating why an Air National Guard crew flying back and from to and from Kuwait stopped at Trump’s Turnberry resort near Glasgow, Scotland. House Democrats were quick to accuse Trump of financially benefitting off the military. Why not? Russian collusion is dead, and they aren’t exactly having more luck on the obstruction charges. So, bring it on! Another scandal to throw at Donald Trump in an attempt to tarnish his presidency.

Looks like Democrats have another swing and a miss on this latest attempt of brewing up a Trump scandal because the arrangement between the United States Air Force and the airport near the resort was signed during the Obama administration.

The U.S. Air Force has lodged crews at President Donald Trump’s Scotland resort up to 40 times since 2015, a figure that is far higher than previously known.

The tally represents the preliminary results of an Air Force review launched after POLITICO reported last week that an Air National Guard crew stayed at Turnberry in March. Congressional Democrats have also been investigating military stays at the property, but have yet to receive any information from the Pentagon.

The figure does not indicate how many of the stays have occurred since Trump became president. But the Air Force has significantly ramped up its overnight stops in Scotland under Trump after signing a contract with the Prestwick Airport — situated 20-plus miles from Turnberry — in the waning months of the Obama administration. Since 2015, the service has lodged crews in the area 659 times, meaning up to 6 percent of those stays were at Turnberry.

Why It’s Unlikely the McCabe Grand Jury Voted against Indictment By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/why-its-unlikely-the-mccabe-grand-jury-voted-against-indictment/

Despite swirling rumors, there’s no reason to infer a grand jury has rejected a proposed indictment of Andrew McCabe.

I n coverage of the Andrew McCabe investigation, there seems to be a lot of adding two plus two and coming up with five.

The New York Times and Washington Post have reported that a grand jury met on Thursday in connection with a probe involving McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director. As I write this column on Friday evening, no indictment has been returned against McCabe. From this, and what seems to be some hopeful speculation about “hints of the case’s weakness” that could possibly have caused grand jurors to “balk,” the Times and the Post suggest that maybe the grand jury has voted against an indictment.

This supposition has prompted a letter to the Justice Department from McCabe’s attorney, Michael Bromwich — a former colleague of mine who, besides being a skilled and shrewd attorney, is a Democrat and was last seen representing Christine Blasey Ford, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser. Bromwich says he is hearing “rumors from reporters” about the filing of a “no true bill” — i.e., a grand-jury vote rejecting a proposed indictment of McCabe.

While conceding that he “do[es] not know the specific basis for the rumors,” Bromwich intuits that they must be reliable because the newspapers ran with the story. Mind you, neither the Times nor the Post claims to have been told by any grand jurors that they declined to indict McCabe; nor do they report hearing from any knowledgeable government official that a no true bill was voted. Nevertheless, McCabe’s legal team is demanding that the Justice Department disclose whether an indictment was declined and refrain from seeking an indictment in the future.

This gambit, of course, floats the narrative that the case against McCabe must be crumbling — the media reports spur the Bromwich letter, which spur more media reports, rinse and repeat. But even allowing for the erosion of standards, this is thin gruel for both news reporting and legal claims.

Four decades of bad nutrition advice based on ‘settled science’ was contradicted by rigorous study of the time – but it was largely suppressed By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/four_decades_of_bad_nutrition_advice_based_on_settled_science_was_contradicted_by_rigorous_study_of_the_time__but_it_was_largely_suppressed.html

Newly unearthed data from four decades ago contradicted gospel that animal fats are worse than vegetable fats — and was ignored.  All those climate alarmists who proclaim that they “believe in science” fail to understand that science is created by flawed human beings who are susceptible to ignoring findings that don’t confirm their hypotheses.  Or generate future grants for more research in the field.

Today, the “settled science” of nutrition as it stood decades ago is being questioned, in part because Americans have become obese after decades of following federal guidelines that turn out to be poppycock.

In The Scientific American, which is all in on global warming as settled science, renowned science writer Sharon Begley chronicles the rediscovery “in a dusty basement” of a rigorous study from 40 years ago that contradicted the dietary wisdom of the day.

[Christopher] Ramsden, of the National Institutes of Health, unearthed raw data from a 40-year-old study, which challenges the dogma that eating vegetable fats instead of animal fats is good for the heart. The study, the largest gold-standard experiment testing that idea, found the opposite, Ramsden and his colleagues reported on Tuesday in BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal).

Despite the quality of the data and study, it went almost completely unnoticed:

Take Two Aspirin and Call Me by My Pronouns At ‘woke’ medical schools, curricula are increasingly focused on social justice rather than treating illness. By Stanley Goldfarb ******

https://www.wsj.com/articles/take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-by-my-pronouns-11568325291

The American College of Physicians says its mission is to promote the “quality and effectiveness of health care,” but it’s stepped out of its lane recently with sweeping statements on gun control. And that isn’t the only recent foray into politics by medical professionals. During my term as associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, I was chastised by a faculty member for not including a program on climate change in the course of study. As the Journal reported last month, such programs are spreading across medical schools nationwide.

Why have medical schools become a target for inculcating social policy when the stated purpose of medical education since Hippocrates has been to develop individuals who know how to cure patients?

A new wave of educational specialists is increasingly influencing medical education. They emphasize “social justice” that relates to health care only tangentially. This approach is the result of a progressive mind-set that abhors hierarchy of any kind and the social elitism associated with the medical profession in particular.

These educators focus on eliminating health disparities and ensuring that the next generation of physicians is well-equipped to deal with cultural diversity, which are worthwhile goals. But teaching these issues is coming at the expense of rigorous training in medical science. The prospect of this “new,” politicized medical education should worry all Americans.

Breaking Down the Report of an Imminent McCabe Indictment By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/andrew-mccabe-report-imminent-indictment/

McCabe has indicated that, if charged, he would claim the Justice Department was under pressure from the White House.

Federal prosecutors in Washington have recommended that criminal charges be filed against Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, and the Justice Department has rejected a last-ditch appeal by McCabe’s lawyers, according to a report on Thursday by Fox News. This clears the way for what appears to be McCabe’s imminent indictment.

Jesse Liu, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia (appointed by Trump), has reportedly decided that McCabe should be charged. The decision was based on a referral by the Justice Department’s inspector general (appointed by Obama), Michael Horowitz. In a comprehensive report last year, issued after a probe of a leak of investigative information to the media orchestrated by McCabe, Horowitz found that McCabe had misled investigators, including making false statements under oath. As we observed here when the IG’s report was released, the case laid out by Horowitz appears compelling.

The Fox report indicates that Liu signaled to McCabe’s lawyers that she was persuaded to file charges. McCabe’s lawyers then appealed that decision to Jeffrey Rosen, the deputy attorney general (DAG). At least one source told Fox that McCabe’s team received an email from the Justice Department, which states: “The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office.”

U.S. Attorney Recommends Bringing Charges against Andrew McCabe: Report By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-s-attorney-recommends-bringing-charges-against-andrew-mccabe-report/

U.S. attorney Jessie Liu has recommended that the Department of Justice bring charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe for lying to investigators, Fox News reported Thursday.

McCabe appealed Liu’s decision to deputy attorney general Jeffrey Rosen, who rejected his plea.

“The Department rejected your appeal of the United States Attorney’s Office’s decision in this matter. Any further inquiries should be directed to the United States Attorney’s Office,” reads an email sent to McCabe’s legal team by the DOJ, which was obtained by Fox News.

The potential charges relate to McCabe’s allegedly misleading FBI investigators about his role in the leaking of classified information related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

McCabe, who was recently hired by CNN as a national security analyst, became acting director of the FBI in April 2017 following the firing of James Comey.

Attorney general Jeff Sessions then fired McCabe in March 2018 over the DOJ inspector general’s finding that he “lacked candor” when asked by Comey, and later two investigators, whether he leaked information about the Clinton email probe to a Wall Street Journal reporter.

While speaking with a reporter, McCabe allegedly confirmed the existence of the Clinton investigation, in violation FBI policy, by defending his agents’ prerogative to look into the Clinton Foundation as part of the probe.

EXCERPT FROM MARK STEYN ON GENERAL MATTIS

Insofar as Islam got a look in from officialdom, it was a passing reference in the speech of Defense Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis:

Maniacs disguised in false religious garb thought by hurting us they could scare us that day.

Well, whoever they are, these “maniacs” can evidently scare grizzled hard men called “Mad Dog” into concluding that, when it comes to mentioning the I-word, discretion is the better part of valor. “False religious garb” means we’re back to the standard Euro-squish line that all this Allahu Akbar I’m-ready-for-my-virgins stuff is a “perversion” of the real Islam, which is a peaceful faith practiced by millions of people for whom self-detonation is an unwelcome distraction from traditional activities such as clitoridectomies, honor killings and throwing sodomites off tall buildings. Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but these “maniacs” are hijacking this “religious garb” in order to peddle a “false” vision of Islam. Foaming-canine-wise, Mad Dog sounds about as mad as, say, Theresa May. I take it that, even in today’s politically correct military, you can’t earn the epithet “Mad Dog” simply by handing out diversity awards to the Transgender Outreach Liaison Officer of the Month, and General Mattis served honorably and impressively in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, when it comes to strategic clarity, that may be the problem.

The Language of Losing by Mark Steyn

https://www.steynonline.com/9730/the-language-of-losing

The eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 was marked by the Administration inviting the Taliban to Camp David, and by the resignation and/or firing of John Bolton as National Security Advisor – which two events may not be unconnected. Because really, when the Taliban are running around Camp David, who needs national security?

For the fifteen years after the launch of SteynOnline in 2002, we re-posted every year on this date material of mine from September 11th 2001 and the days we followed. Two years ago, we ceased that policy, for reasons I discussed on Clubland Q&A:

If this is a war, there’s no agreement on what we’re up against: Terrorism? Islamic terrorism? Islamic extremism? Islam? Whatever it is, a president who, on the campaign trail, mocked his predecessor’s inability to use the words “radical Islam” himself eschewed all mention of the I-word today. September 11th 2001 was supposedly “the day everything changed” – if by “everything changed” you mean “the rate of mass Muslim immigration to the west doubled”. As that absurd statistic suggests, we are not where I thought we would be 16 years on: We run around fighting for worthless bits of barren sod like Helmand province in Afghanistan, while surrendering day by day some of the most valuable real estate on the planet, such as France and Sweden.

That last point may seem obvious. But, if it is, it’s a truth all but entirely unacknowledged by anyone who matters in the western world. I subsequently expanded on it, in a piece we called “The Language of Losing” and which appears to have been succeeded by “The Actions of Losers” – such as inviting the Taliban to Camp David. Hey, why not for the ceremonies in Lower Manhattan? On yet another wretched anniversary I mourn not only the dead of that grim day, but our loss of purpose. All that has changed two years on is that for “sixteenth anniversary” we substitute “eighteenth” – and on and on into the future:

In any war, you have to be able to prioritize: You can’t win everything, so where would you rather win? Raqqa or Rotterdam? Kandahar or Cannes? Yet, whenever some guy goes Allahu Akbar on the streets of a western city, the telly pundits generally fall into one of two groups: The left say it’s no big deal, and the right say this is why we need more boots on the ground in Syria or Afghanistan. Yesterday President Trump said he was committed to ensuring that terrorists “never again have a safe haven to launch attacks against our country”.