China’s Turning Point A major catastrophe on the horizon? Michael Ledeen

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/china-faces-historical-turning-poin

China appears to be on the brink.

The communist regime is threatening our ally, Taiwan — one of several Asian countries seeking closer ties with the United States while China’s domestic turmoil grows.

In a recent column in China’s state-sponsored Global Times, editor-in-chief Hu Xijin warned, “As the secessionist forces’ arrogance continues to swell, the historical turning point is getting closer.”

“The only way forward is for the mainland to fully prepare itself for war and to give Taiwan secessionist forces a decisive punishment at any time,” he wrote.

Taiwan’s opposition party has been seeking closer cooperation with the United States. But, Hu wrote: “The more trouble Taiwan creates, the sooner the mainland will decide to teach Taiwan independence forces a hard lesson.”

China has been angered by the ongoing tour of Asia by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is seeking support for U.S. efforts to contain China. Recently, the Taiwanese Kuomintang Party, or KMT, renewed its effort for the government to reestablish diplomatic ties with the U.S.

The EU’s Discrimination Against Israel An inherited instinct to scapegoat the Jews. Fri Oct 16, 2020 Joseph Puder

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/eus-discrimination-against-i

The European Union (EU) discriminating policies against Israel are not new. The EU court approved the labeling of products from Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. This labeling is reminiscent of the “Yellow Star of David” Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany and in Nazi occupied Europe. Israel considers the EU court decision to be unfair and discriminatory. It pointed out that other countries involved in land disputes are not similarly sanctioned. Now the EU has come up with a new discriminating formula in which to single out Israel. It is spelled by the EU as “housing demolitions” in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria for most Israelis).

According to Professor Hillel Frisch of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, “Entering the phrase ‘housing demolition’ in the EU’s official website yields a shocking result: 18 of the first documents to appear concern Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in the West Bank. In other words, 80% of the EU reports on this worldwide phenomenon involve a population and an area less than one-tenth of 1% of the world’s population or landmass.”

Ironically, an EU report from 2005, acknowledge widespread discriminatory demolition and eviction within the EU against Gypsy, Roma, and Sinti populations in such countries as Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Portugal.  Housing demolition as a punitive practice occurs throughout the world.  India accuses Pakistan of the practice in Hindu areas in Pakistan’s Punjab region. Egypt evicted thousands of Bedouins in the Sinai to clear the way for housing projects for Egyptians from outside the Sinai Peninsula. In the U.S., likewise, evictions and demolition of homes occur for the purpose of urban renewal.

Israel has continued a practice that dates back to the British Mandate, when British authorities demolished homes of terrorists. Israel has continued the practice as a deterrent against would be terrorists. These terror practitioners know that it would cost their family their home. Moreover, Israel, in following the rule-of-law, has the right to demolish illegally built homes whether the occupants are Arab-Palestinians or Jews.

Twitter Operates as Biden’s Censorship Arm A sordid tale of tech giants’ election interference. Joseph Klein

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/10/twitter-operates-bidens-censorship-arm-joseph-klein/

Twitter is censoring the dissemination of links to a bombshell news story and user commentary that is negative to the Democrats’ presidential candidate Joe Biden as voters are already casting their ballots less than three weeks before Election Day. On Wednesday, Twitter as well as Facebook blocked access through their platforms to a New York Post story casting serious doubts on Biden’s denials that he had ever discussed his son Hunter’s business dealings with the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma while he was serving as vice president. Hunter was raking in lots of money from Burisma while his father Joe was traveling to Ukraine as the Obama administration’s point man there.

The New York Post article published the text of an e-mail reportedly showing a top Burisma executive thanking Hunter for “the opportunity to meet your father.” In May 2014, the year that Hunter Biden secured his lucrative position with Burisma for which he had no qualifications other than the Biden name, Vadym Pozharskyi, a top Burisma adviser, e-mailed Hunter asking Joe Biden’s prodigal son “how you could use your influence” on Burisma’s behalf. Less than a year later, on April 17, 2015, Pozharskyi reportedly sent Hunter Biden an e-mail thanking Hunter “for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent (sic) some time together.” Less than eight months after the date of this e-mail, during a December 2015 trip to Ukraine, Joe Biden by his own admission pressured Ukraine’s leaders to get rid of the Ukrainian prosecutor or face the loss of a $1 billion dollar loan guarantee. That prosecutor claimed he was preparing to investigate Burisma, which would have meant interrogations of members of Burisma’s executive board including Hunter Biden.

Biden Muddles Through Gentle, Hunter-Free Town Hall Biden’s softball town hall did not instill confidence. By David Marcus

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/15/biden-muddles-through-gentle-hunter-free-town-hall/

Biden’s softball town hall did not instill confidence.

Joe Biden came into Thursday night’s town hall, which was originally supposed to be a debate, stung by new allegations of influence-peddling involving his son Hunter. The question on everyone’s mind going in was whether he would be allowed to answer any question harder than chocolate or tapioca? With social media strangling the Hunter story from the New York Post, the nation’s oldest continuous daily newspaper, and Twitter going dark after criticism, it was up to old media, ABC News, to act responsibly and ask the question.

Joe appeared with Greek heartthrob George Stephanopoulos. They started off with a question from a Democrat who was dismayed by Trump’s response to COVID-19. What would Biden have done differently? Now listen, carefully. He wanted more access to China; so did Trump. After that? Biden wrote a USA op-ed. But he can point to nothing he would have done substantively differently from Trump’s response. Nothing. This is important. According to Democrats, Trump killed 200,000 people, but they can’t say what they would have done differently.

Biden’s big plan going forward seems to be a mix of big signs about masks in stores, ventilation systems, and bearing the example of wearing a mask. On vaccines, Biden referred to the body of scientists, whatever that means, and said that if they said it was OK, he would take it. But he reminded us that Trump lies and we should be careful.

“Common Sense & COVID-19”-Sydney Williams

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

A desire for more power for themselves and the state, identity politics and unadulterated hatred for Mr. Trump, have driven common sense into the nether regions of the progressive mind. The Oxford English Dictionary defines common sense as “good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.” It is, as Harriet Beecher Stowe put it, “seeing things as they are,” not as we might like them to be. It is, according to Thomas Edison, an imperative quality: “The three essentials to achieve anything are: first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense.” A lack of common sense infects all issues, from the economy, to climate, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is the effect of a lack of common sense regarding COVID-19 and reactions to it that concerns this essay.

We have always lived in a politicized world, but we now live in one made more pervasive by the advent of the internet and social media. Attitudes toward masks have become flashpoints in the battle against COVID-19. It is said that opinions regarding masks differentiate Democrats from Republicans. Perhaps, but it sounds too simplistic. I do believe, however, that one can distinguish the individual who abrogates rational behavior to a political narrative. A friend wears a mask when driving alone in his car, but unlike many on the left he is honest as to his reason. He admits the purpose is to send a signal that he cares – not to protect himself or others against the virus – but a sign of his righteousness. But he ignores risks to his health; for, no matter how “woke” he may feel, we all need the fresh air an open car window provides. Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, a German Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist is quoted: “We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells, for example, in the hippocampus that can’t be longer than three minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive.” It is an opinion that resonates common sense. Yet, Mr. Trump is ridiculed for removing his mask, when ten or twenty feet from others, while Mr. Biden has spoken of imposing a nation-wide mask-wearing mandate.

Trump: Yes Just look at the alternative. By Andrew C. McCarthy ******

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/11/02/trump%E2%80%88yes/#slide-1

Just look at the alternative

As I write this, the outcome of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is not yet known. Besides observing that she is eminently qualified, there is just one thing we can say with confidence: The president trying to seat a third justice on the nation’s highest judicial tribunal is not Hillary Clinton. 

Those two words, “Hillary Clinton,” more than any others that can be uttered, explain why Donald J. Trump is president of these United States. 

Out of the 17 Republicans who sought the party’s 2016 nomination, Mr. Trump was at or near the bottom of my preference list. More times than I can count, I’ve argued that the best thing he had going for him in the final showdown against the Democrats was . . . the Democrats — in particular, their nominee. 

Plus ça change . . .

But Trump is unfit, many proclaim. Tell me about it. Conservatives and Republicans have made that case with great persuasive force since the New York real-estate magnate first announced his candidacy in summer 2015. The consuming narcissism, nonstop dissembling, infantile outbursts, inability to admit error, withering attacks on well-meaning officials he entices into working for him — though Trump has been a much better president than I thought he’d be, it’s not like the leopard’s spots have faded away. 

The indictment continues: Trump is unprincipled — that’s the modifier invoked by those without patience for the grand-master designation preferred in MAGA Land, transactional. The norms he is demolishing are not, in fact, musty, deep-state relics; they are, to the contrary, the essence of the presidency, of its capacity to influence world events for the better. So deep runs his solipsism, so thin is his skin, that he cannot — not will not, cannot — distinguish between his own petty interests and the vital interests of the nation. Nor can he spot friends from foes, thus becoming infatuated with the rogues who flatter him and antagonistic toward allies anxious to preserve the post–World War II international order and America’s stabilizing centrality in it. His social-media fusillades, more befitting Don from Queens on his fourth beer in the saloon than the leader of the free world, degrade the office, undermine the rule of law (Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the president’s tweets sometimes “make it impossible for me to do my job”), and confuse both American officials and foreign powers regarding what the position of the United States is on matters of great importance. 

We could go on, as some have indeed gone on in this vein for four years running. Yet this argument has always missed the point. The most compelling case for Trump has never been Trump. It has always been, and remains, Trump . . . as opposed to what?

Hunter Biden Offered $10 Million Annually by Chinese Energy Firm for ‘Introductions Alone,’ Email Shows By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/ne

Hunter Biden entered into a consulting contract with China’s largest private energy company that initially earned him $10 million a year “for introductions alone,” according to leaked emails.

In an email chain from Aug. 2, 2017, Biden discussed a deal with the former chairman of CEFC China Energy, Ye Jianming, saying Ye agreed to change the terms of Biden’s three-year consulting contract with CEFC, which initially promised Biden $10 million per-year “for introductions alone,” to make it “much more lasting and more lucrative,” the New York Post reported, although the authenticity of the Biden emails has not been independently confirmed.

The new deal included a 50 percent equity stake in a holding company created by Ye rather than the $10 million in annual cash that had been previously negotiated.

“The chairman changed that deal after we me[t] in MIAMI TO A MUCH MORE LASTING AND LUCRATIVE ARRANGEMENT to create a holding company 50% percent [sic] owned by ME and 50% owned by him,” Biden wrote in one email.

CHARLOTTE’S NEWS WEB

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/huge-trump-gains-7-points-joe-biden-one-week-still-holds-23-approval-black-voters/

HUGE! Trump Gains 7 Points on Joe Biden in ONE WEEK and Still Holds 23% Approval with Black Voters Jim Hoft

https://www.israelunwired.com/joe-bidens-world-is-crashing-down/

Joe Biden’s World Is Crashing Down

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/10/15/trumps-momentum-is-back-n2577997?

Trump’s Momentum Is Back
Kurt Schlichter

https://rumble.com/vaebnx-media-unwilling-to-explore-hunter-biden-business-dealings-author-peter-schw.html

Media unwilling to explore Hunter Biden business dealings, author Peter Schweizer says

Scott Atlas: The Other Doctor on the COVID Task Force By Philip Wegmann

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/15/scott_atlas_the_other_doctor_on_the_covid_task_force_144448.html

Dr. Scott W. Atlas joined the president’s coronavirus task force in August, but after two months, he has yet to sit for a photo shoot or throw out a first pitch or inspire a single artisanal cocktail. No one has impersonated him on “Saturday Night Live” either, and there certainly isn’t any grassroots campaign to get him nominated as People magazine’s “Sexiest Man Alive.”

Although he has a medical degree from the University of Chicago, Atlas is the other doctor, and he knows it. “I’m not here to make friends. Okay?” he tells RealClearPolitics in a rare interview. “I’m here to help the president save American lives. Period.”

Every other member of the commission would say the same. Combating the coronavirus is the whole point, and saving lives through disease mitigation and prevention remains their goal. But Atlas, a neuro-radiologist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has different ideas about how to beat COVID-19. He says publicly that children do not frequently spread the virus. He questions the efficacy of mask mandates. He condemns lockdowns as not just ineffective but deeply destructive.

In short, Atlas is a walking/talking ambassador for Trump’s the-cure-can’t-be-worse-than-the-disease argument. Those views and his proximity to an impressionable president, critics argue, make Atlas a public health threat. Hence, his unpopularity in some circles.

Amazon Cancels Shelby Steele The company won’t stream a film on the ‘real victimization of black America.’

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-cancels-shelby-steele-11602715834?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

As a documentary, “What Killed Michael Brown?” has everything going for it. Its subject is timely, about the pre-George Floyd killing of Michael Brown by a police officer that set off riots in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014.

It’s written and narrated by Shelby Steele, the prominent African-American scholar at the Hoover Institution, and directed by his filmmaker son, Eli Steele. Its subject—race relations—is a major fault line in this year’s presidential election, one reason the Steeles scheduled their film for release on Oct. 16. Our columnist Jason Rileywrote about the film on Wednesday.

One problem: “What Killed Michael Brown?” doesn’t fit the dominant narrative of white police officers killing young black men because of systemic racism. As a result, says the younger Mr. Steele, Amazon rejected it for its streaming service. “We were canceled, plain and simple.”

In an email, Amazon informed the Steeles that their film is “not eligible for publishing” because it “doesn’t meet Prime Video’s content quality expectations.” Amazon went on to say it “will not be accepting resubmission of this title and this decision may not be appealed.”

On their website—whatkilledmichaelbrown.com—the Steeles offer other options for people looking to watch their documentary. But it’s sadly telling about elite political conformity that an intelligent film that gives voice to a variety of people, almost all black, who would otherwise not be heard is somehow deemed unfit for polite company. As Eli Steele puts it, “When Amazon rejected us they also silenced these voices and that is the great sin of a company that professes to be diverse and inclusive.”