WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

NATO Now Serves the Interests of the Transatlantic Ruling Class By Angelo Codevilla

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/15/nato-now-serves-the-interests-

If we’re to believe the recent NATO summit’s communique and the mainstream media’s commentaries about it, the alliance serves roughly the same essential purpose today as it did in 1948, and Americans had better heed European Council President Donald Tusk’s thinly veiled warning: rein in President Trump’s criticisms of NATO, because its members are about the only allies America has got.

But although the people who run today’s European and American societies are perhaps closer to each other than in 1948—which accounts for their dogged defense of “the alliance”—in fact, they themselves have changed in ways that obviate the purposes for which the alliance originally was formed.

The point of departure for understanding U.S.-European relations is that the relationship between “the people who count” on both sides of the Atlantic are so good precisely because they have become aliens to their own peoples. And, since all are in the process of being rejected by their own peoples, they are each others’ natural allies. But against whom are they allied?

What is the purpose of this alliance and what does it mean to us Americans?

Herewith, a summary of these moral and political changes, whose importance dwarfs the massive material transformations that the world has undergone in the past 70 years.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Maxine Waters is the Face of the New Progressive Democratic Party By John Kinsellagh

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/16/maxine-waters-is-the-face

The most noteworthy thing to emerge from the recent Maxine Waters dustup wasn’t her call for mob harassment tactics against Trump Administration officials, nor the attendant inflammatory language she employed, but rather, the swift reaction of two women’s activist groups who castigated House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, for her audacity in reproaching Waters.

The two letters are significant not only because they convey the ideological principles upon which the progressive opposition to the Trump Administration will be based, but because they also forebode the inevitable internecine conflict that will soon engulf the Democratic Party.

The contents of both letters are rife with extremism and provide a glimpse into the soul of modern progressive identity politics.

The letters also are evidence that the zany social theories and concepts of group identity politics, spawned by the need for instances of perpetual grievance demanded by the Diversity Beast that was created long ago by the fringes of the academic Left. This beast is now a part of mainstream American life, having been incorporated by the vocabulary and policies of the Democratic Party.

Live by Identity Politics, Die by Identity Politics

The first letter from a group of black women politicians states an obvious but unpleasant political reality brought to the Democratic Party by their now decades long obsession with identity politics. In order to win national elections, Democrats needs to capture almost 90 percent of the black vote. The letter indelicately reminds Pelosi of the long-term fealty of African-Americans to the party in stark and unforgiving terms.

“For Black women, who are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement, Congresswoman Waters is our shero [sic].”

The letter further reminds the Minority Leader that,

Disparaging or failing to support Congresswoman Waters is an affront to her and Black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the Democratic Party can ill afford: that it does not respect Black women’s leadership and political power and discounts the impact of Black women and millennial voters.

POLITICS Comments turned off

Democrats Are Dumping Moderates By John Fund

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/democrats-dump-moderates-move-to-far-left/

But promoting socialism, sky-high taxes, and open borders is probably not going to help them trounce the GOP in November.

The activist base of the Democratic party is lurching left fast enough that everyone should pay attention. Activists matter because their turnout in low-turnout primaries and caucuses almost propelled leftist Bernie Sanders to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated New York congressman Joe Crowley, the No. 4 ranking House Democrat in a low-turnout primary. She benefited from organizing support from the Democratic Socialists of America. Leftists have also upset establishment Democrats in statewide primaries for governor in Colorado and Maryland.

The power of left-wing activists showed up in California this past Saturday, as 65 percent of the state Democratic party’s 330-member executive committee voted to spurn moderate Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein. Instead, they endorsed her left-wing opponent, Kevin de León, a state senator. De Leon won a stunning 65 percent of party activists, and Feinstein got just 7 percent.

Just five weeks ago, Feinstein crushed de León in the June open primary, winning every county and finishing in first place with 44 percent of the overall vote. De León finished far behind, with 12 percent. But that was enough for a second-place showing under the state’s primary system, which sends the top two candidates regardless of party into the November election.

Feinstein is still the favorite in the November election because she can better appeal to Republican and independent voters than de León can. But de León now has the official endorsement of the state party even though he won less than 30 percent of the vote cast for Democrats in the primary. That endorsement gives him access to email lists of party voters, a spot on the slate cards endorsing a united Democratic ticket, and a share of the national Democratic party’s campaign cash that will flow into California.

POLITICS Comments turned off

California Dems Don’t Think Senator Feinstein is Liberal Enough By Rick Moran

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/california-dems-dont-think-senator-feinstein-is-liberal-enough/

The state party gives its endorsement to a radical leftist.

The California state Democratic Party apparently doesn’t believe that one of the most liberal senators in the country is liberal enough for California.

Dianne Feinstein has been a liberal icon since she took office as a senator in 1993. But the state party has given its endorsement to Feinstein’s Democratic rival, state Senator Kevin de Leon.

De Leon is a radical leftist who has become a star among California Democrats. Feinstein, the 14th most liberal senator according to one analysis, isn’t partisan enough or radical enough for most state Democrats. It sets up an interesting contest in November as Feinstein has far more money and name recognition while de Leon has the enthusiasm and love of the activists.

Associated Press:

“Today’s vote is a clear-eyed rejection of politics as usual in Washington, D.C.,” de Leon said in a statement after the vote. “We have presented Californians with the first real alternative to the worn-out Washington playbook in a quarter-century.”

A total of 217 delegates voted for de Leon, of Los Angeles, while 22 cast ballots for Feinstein and 94 voted for no endorsement.

Party members and activists are typically more liberal than the wider California electorate that has sent Feinstein to Washington five times. Feinstein has turned skepticism from some party activists into an asset in her past campaigns.

POLITICS Comments turned off

As Pelosi increasingly incoherent in public, Dems face a battle over leadership succession By Thomas Lifson

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/as_pelosi_increasingly_incoherent_in_public_dems_face_a_battle_over_leadership_succession.html

Long-simmering ethnic tensions in a party increasingly defined by identity politics could erupt if Nancy Pelosi’s mental decline forces her to bow out of her leadership of the Democrats’ House Caucus. With African-Americans the largest loyal base constituency, the fact that there has never been a black minority leader, much less speaker, the choice of her successor could split the party. Potentially at stake is the Speakership that could result if the longed-for Blue Wave produces a Democrat House majority.

Kyle Olsen of The American Mirror red flags Pelosi’s latest lapse into incoherence at a podium. Speaking to reporters Thursday,

Pelosi suffered brain freezes, speech problems and confused Russia and China at least twice.

While attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Pelosi had trouble saying “effectively.”

“His kowtowing to the president, esffect, esffectively saying…” she said.

Moments later, while attacking the Trump tax cut, she said, “…the GOP tax scam for the rich that added 2 children dollars more” to the deficit.

See for yourself in the 83 second excerpt:

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Sen. Manchin Tells Schumer to ‘Kiss My You Know What’ on SCOTUS Vote By Rick Moran

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/sen-manchin-tells-schumer-to-kiss-my-you-know-what-on-scotus-vote/

Democrats have been threatening Armageddon in order to defeat Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Their frothing at the mouth base has been issuing blood curdling warnings to any Democratic senator who dares break ranks and vote for him.

But some Democrats, at least, aren’t being intimidated.

The Hill:

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) had strong words for Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) efforts to unify the party against President Trump’s Supreme Court pick.

Manchin suggested to Politico that Schumer does not have any influence over whether or not he supports Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.

“I’ll be 71 years old in August, you’re going to whip me? Kiss my you know what,” Manchin told Politico, referring to whipping votes among the party caucus.

Schumer has spoken out harshly against Kavanaugh and vowed to oppose him “with everything I’ve got.” Democrats will need at least two GOP votes, in addition to all Democrats, to block the nomination.

But Democrats up for reelection in Trump states are not guaranteed votes against the confirmation, and many have signaled that Schumer’s efforts may not be enough to convince them to vote against the nominee.

Manchin is in a tough re-election fight in West Virginia with the state’s GOP attorney general, Patrick Morrissey, and knows that a good way to energize opposition to him is to vote against the nominee of a president who carried the state by 40 points.

But Manchin isn’t the only red state Democratic senator who is telling Schumer to butt out:

“My decision won’t have anything to do with Chuck Schumer,” Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) told Politico. Donnelly, in addition to Manchin and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) all voted in support of Neil Gorsuch.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told Politico that Schumer “knows better” than to try to pressure her to vote a certain way.

“He doesn’t come to me and say: ‘You’ve got to vote with us on this.’ He knows I’ll tell him to take a flyin’ leap,” she said. “I’m going to do what I think is right. It has nothing to do with the party.”

You can add North Dakota Democrat Heidi Heitkamp to that list as well. All four are locked in tight races in states carried by Trump in 2016. CONTINUE AT SITE

ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Story of How Mossad Stole 100,000 Iranian Nuclear Docs By Rick Moran

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-story-of-how-mossad-stole-100000-iranian-nuclear-docs/

You gotta love Mossad. Agents snuck into a warehouse smack in the middle of Tehran last January and, in a 6 1/2-hour operation, managed to steal 100,000 documents that Israel says prove Iran was lying about their nuclear weapons program.

Wall Street Journal:

The Israeli team secretly reached the warehouse holding the materials and broke in during a tight time window when it knew the building would be unguarded, the officials said. To avoid drawing attention to the nondescript facility, Iran hadn’t posted full-time guards, they said, but rather relied on alarm systems that the Israeli agents disabled.

The Israeli operation was first revealed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at an April press conference in which he declared that the stolen documents proved Iran had lied for years in claiming it didn’t have a nuclear-weapons program.

In a lengthy briefing at a security facility here last week, senior Israeli intelligence officials disclosed additional details about the operation. Those include specifics on how the documents were removed from Iran; the existence within the documents of the warhead designs, for which Israel said Iran got unspecified foreign assistance; the operation of a secret explosives-testing facility that international inspectors had long searched for in vain; and a scramble by Iranian officials to keep their nuclear program alive after international inspectors concluded it had been suspended.

There are some cherished myths held by pro-Iran nuclear deal partisans that appear to have been exposed. First, the notion that Iran had “suspended” its nuclear program in 2009 has surely been debunked. Second, the notion that no foreign country would offer Iran help in building a bomb is clearly not true. In this case, it is almost certainly North Korean engineers and techs helping Tehran with their nuclear program.

Third, the idea that Iran couldn’t hide any major nuclear-related facilities from western intelligence or UN inspectors is a joke. Taken together, the wishful thinking — or deliberate self-delusion — of the Obama administration about Tehran’s nuclear program makes the deal look even worse.

So what did the courageous Mossad agents find?

Iranian nuclear scientists, two of whom later were assassinated under mysterious circumstances, are quoted in one document discussing the need to distinguish between “overt” nuclear research activities, which could continue because they could be shown to have peaceful purposes, and “covert” activities that had to be hidden because they could only be attributed to a nuclear-weapons program. CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

When the Giving Tree Stops Giving by Linda Goudsmit

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21390/when-the-giving-tree-stops-giving: http://goudsmit.pundicity.com

http://lindagoudsmit.com

The United States of America emerged from World War II as the world’s undisputed superpower economically and militarily. The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe that gave over $13 billion (nearly $110 billion in 2016 US dollars) in economic assistance to help rebuild Western European communities after the end of the war. The Marshall Plan provided political stability for the world and created a world market for American good.

United States Secretary of State George Marshall delivered an explanatory speech to the graduating class of Harvard on June 5, 1947:

“The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. … Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the USA. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Eleven Killed in Nicaragua as Government Targets Opposition Strongholds Nearly three months of protests have killed roughly 300 people, mostly unarmed protesters By Robbie Whelan and David Luhnow

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eleven-killed-in-nicaragua-as-government-targets-opposition-strongholds-1531699706

MEXICO CITY—Nicaragua’s embattled President Daniel Ortega moved to tighten his grip on power, as paramilitary forces loyal to his government attacked antigovernment protesters at several key points over the weekend, killing an estimated 11 people.

Three students were killed after clashes at Managua’s main university campus. Meanwhile, as many as eight people died on Sunday as masked gunmen attacked opposition barricades in two provinces, according to the Nicaragua Human Rights Association, a local human-rights group that has been tracking violence during three months of opposition protests.

Among the dead was a 10-year-old girl, the group said.

“It was butchery,” said Alvaro Leiva, the group’s spokesman, describing how armed groups believed to be linked to the government descended on several towns. Many of the men wore black ski masks and some wore military-style fatigues.

The actions appear aimed at clearing out opposition strongholds after nearly three months of protests that have killed roughly 300 people, mostly unarmed protesters.

Mr. Ortega’s government has described the protests as an undemocratic effort to dislodge him from power before his term ends in 2022. He has been in power since 2007, having previously been in power during the 1980s.

At least 25 have died since Tuesday, as police, working in coordination with armed gangs, attacked barricades set up by protesters on the sprawling campus of the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua in Managua and elsewhere in the country, according to local news reports, human-rights groups and Catholic church leaders.

On Friday, two students were killed and 15 badly injured in a coordinated attack on the university, sending students fleeing to a nearby church, where another student died. CONTINUE AT SITE

EDUCATION Comments turned off

What the Yale Law School Freakout Says About the Opposition to Kavanaugh Andrew Ferguson

Posted By on July 16th, 2018

https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/supreme-court-on-cue-yale-law-school-students-freak-out-about-kavanaugh?mod=article_inline

When President Trump announced last Monday that he had chosen Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy, his little speech rang out like a starter pistol. Instantly every activist, party hack, and ideological mainchancer bolted from the blocks, issuing petitions and press releases and formal statements with astonishing speed and at maximum volume. This includes Kavanaugh’s alma mater, Yale Law School, and a contingent of his fellow Yalies.

It took only an hour after Trump’s announcement for the law school’s flacks to announce the news that Trump had chosen one of their own: “President Donald Trump today nominated Brett M. Kavanaugh ’90 . . .” etc., etc. The rest of the school’s press release was a series of testimonials from acquaintances about Kavanaugh’s overall magnificence. One professor called him “a terrific judge.” Another said that “Kavanaugh commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers, judges, and justices.” A man with the impressive job title “John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence” summed up: “We are proud that he is our graduate.”

We? Speak for yourself, Herr Professor. By the next day a collection of not-proud and indeed horrified Yalies had posted a rebuttal to the school’s press release, with the title “Open Letter from Yale Law Students, Alumni, and Educators Regarding Brett Kavanaugh.” They were, they wrote, “ashamed of our alma mater.”

The letter, which is twice as long as the press release, is a masterpiece of pure scold. The signers criticize the “press release’s focus on the nominee’s professionalism, pedigree, and service to Yale Law School.” What the hell, they ask, do professionalism and pedigree have to do with anything? Especially when “the true stakes of his nomination” are so high? Kavanaugh’s nomination is an “emergency,” they tell us, and the school’s implicit embrace of him raises a “disturbing question: Is there nothing more important to Yale Law School than its proximity to power and prestige?”

Disturbing or not, it’s the kind of question that answers itself. And the answer is no sir, there is not—absolutely nothing whatsoever. The reason Yale Law School exists is to convey its “students, alumni, and educators” as close as possible to power and prestige. You can’t charge $255,000 for a law degree unless you throw in a healthy portion of P&P. This is why all those people who signed the open letter went to Yale and not to Oklahoma City School of Law. Nothing against OKC. I’m sure it’s terrific.