Displaying posts published in

March 2019

Democrats’ new campaign ‘reforms’ are a war on free speech: Rich Lowry

https://nypost.com/2019/03/11/democrats-new-campaign-reforms-are-a-war-on-free-speech/

The same Democrats who can’t abide President Trump’s alleged offenses against the First Amendment passed, as their first priority, a speech-restricting bill opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Trump shouldn’t call the media the ­“enemy of the people” or inveigh against Jeff Bezos for owning The Washington Post, but Nancy Pelosi’s HR 1, enacted in the House last week, is the true affront to the Constitution.

The wide-ranging legislation purports to reform campaign finance with a series of vague, sweeping measures that will act to chill speech when they don’t actively regulate or squelch it. HR 1 is called the For the People Act but would be more aptly titled The Be Careful What You Say, It Might Be Illegal Act.

‘Intersectional’ Democrats Reap What They Sow: Candace Owens

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/11/intersectional-democrats

The party that has spent years working to turn American politics into a mud pit of racial strife is finally reaping what it sowed.

Once the exclusive province of campus leftists, “intersectionality” is the idea that all “oppressed and powerless” people ought to put their squabbles aside and unite in a common struggle. As they have grown increasingly reliant on a coalition of non-whites, sexual minorities, and feminist white women in recent years, Democrats flirted with and then lionized the intersectional Left.

This strategy works effectively when there’s one agreed-upon group of oppressors to cast as a common villain. So Democrats have now fostered and embraced the most extreme activists from every identity group in America—and they have united around their enmity for the white men who voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump.

As the Democrats are learning, however, the plan breaks down when the various sections of the coalition begin to jockey over which has the most privilege or endures the most oppression. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to subdue a mini-revolt within her caucus last week over a watered-down resolution to condemn anti-Semitism because some Democrats considered it a distraction from other forms of bigotry that are more important to them personally. Pelosi’s solution was to dilute the resolution even further until it essentially became meaningless.

It turns out when you invite people into your coalition based on their racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual resentments, eventually they begin to resent each other.

That’s exactly what happened when Somali-American Representative Ilhan Omar’s intersectional allies swooped in to prevent the Democrats from condemning the Minnesota freshman’s promotion of anti-Semitic “dual loyalty” tropes against American Jews and their supporters in Congress.

“[N]o one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx + other communities,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) complained on Twitter. “[W]here are the resolutions against homophobic statements? For anti-blackness? For xenophobia? . . . don’t even get me started on misogyny.”

Another Double-Standard: Recusal Demands for Nunes but not Schiff: Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/03/11/another-double

Two years ago this month, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) was in the midst of a political firestorm.

As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes was uncovering the shocking news that the Obama Justice Department had launched an investigation into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. On March 4, 2017, President Trump infamously tweeted he had discovered that “Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found.”

FBI Director James Comey was scheduled to testify before Nunes’s committee later that month. Comey would confirm publicly for the first time that his agency had indeed opened up a counterintelligence probe in July 2016 into four Trump campaign associates—including campaign manager Paul Manafort—after he intentionally withheld that bombshell from top lawmakers for eight months.

The scandalous operation that the Obama Justice Department thought would be concealed forever after Hillary Clinton won the presidency, instead was at risk of being exposed by Nunes. The totality of the scheme—which also involved the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, Obama’s key advisors, a secret court, and FBI informants among other culprits—slowly was coming into view, jeopardizing the careers of top law enforcement officials as well as throwing into doubt the entire basis for the nascent Trump-Russia collusion plotline.

Ukraine: To Die in Mariupol An On-Site Report by Leni Friedman Valenta and Jiri Valenta

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13881/ukraine-mariupol-report

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin has not articulated the final objective of his proxy war in eastern Ukraine, his actions seem to indicate that he is determined to create a land bridge from Mariupol to Odessa — two major seaports vitally important to Ukraine’s economy. Putin’s overall strategy in Ukraine, also not publicly stated, seems to be to strangle it economically by disrupting shipping between the Odessa and Azov Sea ports, with the aim of eventually subjugating Ukraine to Russia.

“If Putin wants to do something about Mariupol,” a Ukrainian sailor said, “he has only a short time in which to do it. We have a small navy. We hope your country [America] will give us more ships to defend the port.”

“This time,” said a Ukrainian army platoon leader at the front, “if the Russians come, we are not going to let them through. We would rather die.”

On April 3, 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin — upon winning the war Syria while protecting his beleaguered client, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, from a rebel uprising supported by the U.S. and Sunni Gulf states — had some more good news. US President Donald J. Trump had given instructions to the American military to begin planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Although the official decision was announced only on December 21, the Kremlin evidently gambled that Trump might be serious about the withdrawal.

To Disarm North Korea, Hit Hard on Human Rights by Gordon G. Chang

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13885/north-korea-human-rights

American leaders have been wrong. The best way to get what we want from North Korea, whether it be “denuclearization” or anything else, is to reverse decades of Washington thinking and raise the issue of human rights loudly and incessantly. The same is true with regard to North Korea’s sponsor and only formal ally, the People’s Republic of China.

Kim Jong Un knows how inhumane his rule is — he has, after all, had hundreds of people executed — so if we do not talk forcefully about, say, Otto Warmbier, Kim will think we are afraid of him. If he thinks we are afraid of him, he will see no reason to be accommodating. It is unfortunate, but outsiders cannot be polite or friendly.

It is time to let Kim know that America no longer cares about how he feels or even about maintaining a friendly relationship with him. That posture, a radical departure from Washington thinking, is both more consistent with American ideals and a step toward a policy that Kim will respect.

“I’m in such a horrible position, because in one way I have to negotiate,” U.S. President Donald Trump said at CPAC on March 2, while talking about efforts to disarm North Korea. “In the other way, I love Mr. and Mrs. Warmbier, and I love Otto.”

Trump believes he faces a dilemma: that his efforts on behalf of the parents of Otto Warmbier — the University of Virginia student whom North Korean authorities detained, brutalized and killed — undermine his ability to take away nuclear weapons from Kim Jong Un, the leader of that horrific regime.

Netanyahu: May Be Down – But Certainly Not Out A glimpse at the Israeli PM’s legal challenges and election prospects. Joseph Puder

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273086/netanyahu-may-be-down-certainly-not-out-joseph-puder

The major media outlets both in Israel and the U.S. have already made the determination that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is about to go down and should resign. That comes following intense pressure put on Israel’s Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit to issue an indictment less than 100 days before the general elections scheduled for April 9, 2019. Mandelblit issued a recommendation to summon PM Netanyahu for a pre-indictment hearing due to alleged corruption.

Days before Mandelblit was to announce his intention to file corruption charges against PM Netanyahu, Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong liberal democrat, wrote an open letter to Mandelblit warning that if he (Mandelblit) were to proceed with the charges, he would “endanger democracy and freedom of the press” in Israel. Dershowitz pointed out that “Voters, not the police or the courts, should decide Netanyahu’s future.”

In his open letter to Mandelblit, Dershowitz argued:

“According to press reports, you are about to charge the Prime Minister with charges related to his relationship with the media. In my view, any such charges would, as I pointed out in the attached article, endanger democracy and freedom of the press… Such charges would open the Pandora’s box out of which would flow a parade of horribles: every government official – legislators , judges, prosecutors, police officers, administrators – who sought positive coverage with the media, and did anything that helped the media, would have to be investigated.”

Dem House Passes Anti-Democratic Election Overhaul Welcome to the Left’s election theft wish list. Matthew Vadum

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273111/dem-house-passes-anti-democratic-election-overhaul-matthew-vadum

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed an outrageous legislative assault on fair elections and the First Amendment last week that would drive up the occurrence of the voter fraud Democrats increasingly rely on to win elections.

The House approved H.R. 1, dubbed the proposed “For the People Act,” on a strict party line vote of 234 to 193 on March 8. Conservatives quite correctly denounced the measure as a “voter fraud and election theft” wish list.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) trashed the bill, saying it would “unconstitutionally infringe on the speech and associational rights of many public interest organizations and American citizens.”

In a tweet, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) described H.R. 1 as the “Democrat Politician Protection Act,” after previously saying the measure was “a massive power grab.”

“What is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? We had the highest turnout last year since 1966 in an off-year election,” McConnell reportedly said March 6. “People are flooding to the polls … because they’re animated. They’re interested. This is a solution in search of a problem. What it really is, is designed to make it more likely that Democrats win more often.”

On the day the House passed the bill, McConnell repeated his vow never to allow the bill to move to the Senate floor for a vote. This means H.R. 1 will likely become a big issue for both parties on the campaign trail in 2020.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tweeted: “Democrats did not design #HR1 to protect your vote. They designed it to put a thumb on the scale of every election in America and keep the Swamp swampy.”

Censoring Judge Jeanine By Bruce Bawer

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/censoring-judge-jeanine/

“The monstrous events of 9/11, and the other deadly jihadist attacks that have taken place across the Western world (and elsewhere) in the years since, were not betrayals of Islam but acts of obedience to core Islamic scriptures. It’s vitally important for free people in the West to understand these plain facts. But simply to hint at them, apparently, is as verboten at Fox News as it is at CNN.”

At the beginning of every episode of her popular Saturday evening program on Fox News, Justice with Judge Jeanine, Judge Jeanine Pirro reads what she calls her “opening statement” — an editorial, as it were, about an issue of current interest. This past Saturday, March 9, Pirro’s “opening statement” was about first-term Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism, which has been an issue before but which last week led to an unprecedented amount of criticism and to calls for a House resolution explicitly condemning the Minnesota Democrat.

Instead of passing such a resolution, however, the House passed one that not only didn’t mention Omar by name but that shifted focus entirely from Omar’s obviously Koran-based Jew-hatred to other matters. For example, the resolution cited a long list of prejudices (against “African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, and others”) that it attributed to “white supremacists.” It also devoted several paragraphs to “Islamophobia,” excoriating “the irrational belief that Muslims are inherently violent, disloyal, and foreign” and reprehending “unfair allegations that [Muslims] sympathize with individuals who engage in violence or terror or support the oppression of women, Jews, and other vulnerable communities.”

So What if the Clinton Foundation Fleeced Norway? Bring on the Chardonnay! By Bruce Bawer

https://pjmedia.com/trending/so-what-if-the-clinton-foundation-fleeced-norway-bring-on-the-chardonnay/

Hillary Clinton visited Norway last week, an event that brought to my mind, anyway, the fact that, adjusting for population, no country has been more generous to her family’s stupendously sordid con operation than has the land of the fjords.

The numbers are scandalous. Between 2007 and 2016, the Norwegian government transferred no less than 640 million kroner in taxpayer money to the Clinton Foundation. Given the average exchange rate during that period, that sum would’ve been roughly equivalent to $100 million. This means that each and every Norwegian citizen, without being asked, put about twenty dollars into the pockets of that crooked enterprise.

The official reason for these massive payouts was that the Norwegian government wanted to help mothers and children in Africa. In 2016, Norway’s purported newspaper of record, Aftenposten, ran an article in which Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at NYU, said that the real motive was to buy influence for Norway in the corridors of American power.

Well, that’s one reason, but there are others. One is this: Top-level Norwegian politicians are as ambitious as politicians anywhere. For many of them, becoming a member of parliament or cabinet official or even prime minister in a country of six million people isn’t quite enough to satisfy the old ego. How to solve this problem? Fortunately, a solution is already in place. Norway has long paid a hell of a lot more into major world organizations, from the UN on down, than other countries of its size. In fact, it spends more per capita on international development than any nation on Earth. Yes, this means that Norwegian citizens are getting ripped off.

Who Wants to Play the Race Card Against Joe Biden? By Jim Geraghty

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/who-wants-to-play-the-race-card-against-joe-biden/

Today in the New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie offers a blistering attack on the racial politics of . . . Joe Biden, arguing his election as president would continue “Trumpism” in some ways:

For decades Biden gave liberal cover to white backlash. He wasn’t an incidental opponent of busing; he was a leader who helped derail integration. He didn’t just vote for punitive legislation on crime and drugs; he wrote it. His political persona is still informed by that past, even if he were to repudiate those positions now. Biden could lead Democrats to victory over Trump, but his political style might affirm the assumptions behind Trumpism. The outward signs of our political dysfunction would be gone, but the disease would still remain.

Last week, the Washington Post ran an article with the headline, “Biden’s tough talk on 1970s school desegregation plan could get new scrutiny in today’s Democratic Party.” Clearly, a lot of progressives who prefer other candidates see this as a potential vulnerability. Current Affairs declared Biden’s “record on racial integration is indefensible.” Paste calls it his “pro-segregation past.”

(Biden’s anti-busing stances were one of the 20 Things profile of Biden.)

While there was a little bit of discussion about these parts of Biden’s record back in 2008, there was no significant outcry from African Americans then when Obama picked Biden to be his running mate. Biden’s runaway mouth — “first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent” — was well-known back then, and the Obama campaign overcame that challenge twice. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to put him a heartbeat away from the presidency twice.

Biden didn’t lose the love of most Democrats after “gonna put ya’ll back in chains,” “my state was a slave state” or “these Shylocks.”
3

Just how much will African Americans, the Democratic-primary electorate, and the voters as a whole buy into the idea in 2019 that Joe Biden was somehow racist or pandered to racists? As luck would have it, McClatchy has a new article today, reporting that “African-American faith leaders, state legislators, voters and party operatives in South Carolina” believe that Biden shouldn’t be underestimated among that demographic in that early primary state.

There’s a chance that at some point, either one of Biden’s rivals or a surrogate tries to press the former vice president on this, and he responds with something like:

Are you out of your mind? I fought for every Affirmative Action program and diversity initiative and African-American history recognition proposal for years, voted to extend the Voting Rights Act, voted for sanctions on South Africa, voted to make Martin Luther King day a federal holiday, expanded the definition of hate crimes, and I was Barack Obama’s vice president for eight years. And you have the nerve to sit there and point to some vote from the 1970s and accuse me of racism?