Displaying posts published in

November 2019

CHARLOTTE’S NEWS WEB

The Democrats have decided to weaponize impeachment Roger Kimball

https://spectator.us/tale-two-quids-impeachment/

Today marks the official beginning of the Schiff Show Impeachment Follies. It is therefore fitting that I take as my text for today’s meditation Matthew 7:5: ‘Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’

Iranian Engineer in US Sent Tech Secrets Back to Iran: FBI

An Iranian visiting scholar at the University of Michigan is in FBI custody after being charged with stealing and sending tech secrets back to Iran. Amin Hasanzadeh, the accused, is an electrical engineer and Iranian military veteran who worked at a company linked to the Iranian government’s Cruise Division of Air & Space Organization. Hasanzadeh is also a permanent resident of the U.S.

https://clarionproject.org/iranian-engineer-in-us-sent-tech-secrets-back-to-iran-fbi/?utm_source=Clarion+Project+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ecc463e9ad-

Goodwin: Adam Schiff’s dull impeachment hearings are a  total flop By Michael Goodwin

nypost.com/2019/11/13/goodwin-adam-schiffs-dull-impeachment-hearings-are-a-flop/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons … via @nypost

Day One of impeachment was not exactly must-see TV. Sure, it was interesting and substantive at times, which would be compliments if this were a graduate school seminar about the lonely lives and confusing experiences of far-flung diplomats.
But this was a congressional hearing to determine whether to file charges against and ultimately remove the president of the United States. By that standard, the Adam Schiff show was a flop.

Journalists Against Free Speech Once unswerving defenders of the First Amendment, members of the press increasingly support restricting expression. John Tierney

https://www.city-journal.org/journalists-against-free-speech

Suppose you’re the editorial-page editor of a college newspaper, contemplating the big news on campus: protesters have silenced an invited speaker and gone on a violent rampage. Should you, as a journalist whose profession depends on the First Amendment, write an editorial reaffirming the right to free speech?

If that seems like a no-brainer, you’re behind the times. The question stumped the staff of the Middlebury Campus after protesters silenced conservative social thinker Charles Murray and injured the professor who’d invited him. The prospect of taking a stand on the First Amendment was so daunting that the paper dispensed with its usual weekly editorial, devoting the space instead to a range of opinions from others—most of whom defended the protesters. When a larger and more violent mob at the University of California at Berkeley prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, students at the Daily Californian did write a forceful editorial—but not in favor of his right to speak. Instead, they reviled Yiannopoulos and denounced those who “invited chaos” by offering a platform to “someone who never belonged here.”

Free speech is no longer sacred among young journalists who have absorbed the campus lessons about “hate speech”—defined more and more broadly—and they’re breaking long-standing taboos as they bring “cancel culture” into professional newsrooms. They’re not yet in charge, but many of their editors are reacting like beleaguered college presidents, terrified of seeming insufficiently “woke.” Most professional journalists, young and old, still pay lip service to the First Amendment, and they certainly believe that it protects their work, but they’re increasingly eager for others to be “de-platformed” or “no-platformed,” as today’s censors like to put it—effectively silenced.

These mostly younger progressive journalists lead campaigns to get conservative journalists fired, banned from Twitter, and “de-monetized” on YouTube. They don’t burn books, but they’ve successfully pressured Amazon to stop selling titles that they deem offensive. They encourage advertising boycotts designed to put ideological rivals out of business. They’re loath to report forthrightly on left-wing censorship and violence, even when fellow journalists get attacked. They equate conservatives’ speech with violence and rationalize leftists’ actual violence as . . . speech.

Amnesty International Called Out for Falsely Accusing Israel of Attacking Gaza Building — Which Was Actually Hit by Misfired Palestinian Rocket avatar by Benjamin Kerstein

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/11/13/amnesty-international-called-out-for-falsely-accusing-israel-of-attacking-gaza-building-which-was-actually-hit-by-misfired-palestinian-rocket/

Amnesty International falsely accused Israel of bombing a Palestinian human rights organization’s office on Tuesday, when the incident actually involved a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket.

The projectile struck an office building on Tuesday morning in Gaza City where the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights is headquartered.

Amnesty quickly issued a tweet saying, “We strongly condemn attack on the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights whose office in Gaza was struck by an Israeli missile earlier this morning. Strikes targeting civilian buildings is a violation of international law. We are sending our solidarity to @ICHR_Pal.”

Quickly, however, Amnesty’s version of events proved false. Trey Yingst, a foreign correspondent for Fox News, witnessed the incident and tweeted, “Israel did not strike this building. A rocket misfired from Gaza. I was across the street when it happened.”

Amnesty’s claim was conclusively disproven by a report in Israeli daily Haaretz written by Amira Hass, a famously pro-Palestinian journalist.

The rocket that struck the building, Hass wrote, was “a missile that went astray on its launchers.”

Europe: The New Political Weapon of ‘Islamophobia’ by Alain Destexhe

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15159/islamophobia-political-weapon

The objective of using the word “Islamophobia” appears to have been to make Islam untouchable by placing any criticism of it as equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism.

The word “Islamophobia” deliberately intends to transform the critique of a religion — a fundamental right in Western societies — into a crime.

“The term ‘Islamophobia’ serves several functions….Above all, however, the term is intended to silence Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce their religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and dogmatic.” – Pascal Bruckner, in his book, Un racisme ordinaire : Islamophobie et culpabilité, Grasset, 2017 [English version: An Imaginary Racism: Islamophbia and Guilt, Polity 2018]

It is not Muslims people “hate,” any more than they hate Hindus or Buddhists or Shintos. It is the violence and coercion that some adopt — what is known as jihad or holy war — that people reject.

In the attacks at the Bataclan Theater and other sites in 2015, terrorists murdered 131 persons and wounded 413. Is it irrational to remember who was calling those shots?

France is once again profoundly divided over Islam. Last Sunday, November 10, a “March against Islamophobia” was held in Paris in response to an appeal from 50 public figures. In an op-ed in the leftist newspaper Libération, the demonstrators pleaded to “stop Islamophobia and stop the growing stigmatization of Muslims, victims of discrimination and aggression”.

Two recent incidents ignited the public debate and served as a pretext for the march. On October 26, an 84-year-old man shot and injured two men while trying to set fire to the mosque of Bayonne. Earlier in October, in the Regional Assembly of Burgundy, a member of the National Rally party (RN) complained about the presence in the gallery of a woman wearing an Islamic headscarf. The French political class and media condemned both incidents almost unanimously.

Among the signatories of the op-ed are Jean-Luc Mélenchon, president of La France Insoumise (“Unsubmissive France”), the most prominent leftist political party in the French National Assembly; Benoît Hamon, the Socialist Party candidate in the last presidential election; Philippe Martinez, leader of the Communist trade-union General Confederation of Labor (CGT); Yannick Jadot, a prominent Member of European Parliament from the Green party and Edwy Plenel, editor of Mediapart, a successful online media news platform and former editor of the newspaper Le Monde.

Europe Backs Iranian Nuclear Breakout by Majid Rafizadeh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15149/europe-iran-nuclear-breakout

Tehran shelters members of the terrorist group Al Qaeda, and it is reportedly continuing to facilitate the group’s operations.

Now imagine if this rogue state obtains nuclear weapons, what kind of destruction could it inflict on the world?

The international community, particularly European nations, must take urgent steps to counter Iran-backed international terrorism and prevent it from becoming a nuclear state.

When the US State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism on November 1, 2019, four countries — North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Tehran’s staunch ally, Syria — were listed as state sponsors of terrorism. The annual report describes the theocratic establishment of Iran as “the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism” in 2018.

How, in 2018, did the Iranian government receive the title “the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism”? The criteria by which it is determined if a country should be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism are based on whether that state has constantly provided support for acts of terrorism.

In the region, Iran has continued to smuggle weapons and provide military, financial, intelligence and advisory assistance to proxies such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias, Kata’ib Hizballah, Hamas and other designated Palestinian terrorist groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC).

Tehran has spent roughly one billion dollars per year to arm and train these militant groups, which serve Iran’s interests. This sum has contributed to a greater capability for Houthi rocket launches at civilian targets in Saudi Arabia, the deployment of thousands of Hezbollah foot-soldiers in Syria, and the regular bombardment of southern Israel with Hamas rockets bankrolled by Iran.

Whose Witness Is Bolton? Precisely because the Democrats and their kept media realize that the former national security advisor is unlikely to be a witness to their liking, he is unlikely to be a witness at all. Angelo Codevilla

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/13/whose-witness-is-bolton/

he would-be impeachers had been salivating at the prospect that John Bolton, who President Trump had fired after 17 months as his national security advisor, would lend his undoubted “conservative bona fides” to their campaign to convince Americans that Trump is bad, awful, illegitimate, dangerous, even criminal.

Lately however, they have settled on doing with this potential witness what they have done with the ones who have appeared before them behind closed doors—namely, publicize such anti-Trump messages as they can ascribe to him, scrubbed of any other elements, sharpen it to fit their “narrative,” and leave him and others unable to alter it.

Were Bolton to be a witness in the impeachment hearings, what would he say? More importantly, what would he not say? Odds are, he would be a witness against impeachment, and for all the things for which he had worked over a lifetime—for the things which had gained him those bona fides.

Trump parted ways with Bolton because they had come to disagree. Bolton, never one to mince words, never dissembled his disagreements; nor would it occur to him to gainsay the president’s right to be advised by someone more congenial than himself.

On constitutional grounds, he would frustrate any attempt to have him recount anything that he told the president or that the president had told him, or that anyone else had said about the president. John Bolton the lawyer would refuse to divulge his own thoughts about any person or anything that he chose. He would, however, stress that thoughts and judgments attributed to him in the media are merely the opinions of those making the attributions.

Democrats Are Failing the Reality Test Democrats push fake impeachment, fake issues, fake candidates, and fake solutions. Karin McQuillan

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/13/democrats-are-failing-the-reality-test/

It’s hard to think of a major Democrat issue and proposed solution that is not a fake. It’s an emergency. What’s the emergency? Everything. The planet, white privilege, transgender rights, Nazi policies on the border, killer cops. A health care crisis so dire the government must ban private insurance, private doctors, and private hospitals.

Most of all President Trump is a walking emergency. His voters are hate-filled bigots who love his authoritarian tendencies.  They are a danger to our democracy.

Democrat fixes are a list of economic and physical impossibilities. Ban oil, gas, and coal; make health care and college “free”; hand out reparations for slavery. They promise they will raise all the money from billionaires’ spare change.

The Democrats running for president in 2020 don’t talk about normal issues—jobs and national security. They have nothing to say about opportunities for minorities. Instead, it is all fake investigations of fake scandals.

Democrats are running fake impeachment proceedings on a fake accusation of quid pro quo from a fake whistleblower, who is one more deep state operative leaking hearsay that libels the president.

Who are they kidding? Oddly enough, themselves—very successfully.

Fake is fine with their voters. “Fauxcahontas” is a leading candidate. Fake news is all the news they’ll read.

Something has gone terribly wrong with previously normal Democratic Party voters.

Trump Just Made His Case For Reelection, While Dems Play Impeachment John Merline

https://issuesinsights.com/2019/11/14/trump-just-made-his-case-for-r

The day before the Schiff & Pelosi Impeachment Circus opened for its fall run in the House of Representatives, President Donald Trump gave a speech at the Economic Club of New York in which he laid out his argument for a second term. And he made it clear why Democrats are desperate to avoid talking about the economy.

Trump began by resetting the clock back to 2016 when, as we’ve pointed out in this space many times, the economic forecast was grim. 

“The so-called experts said Americans had no choice but to accept stagnation, decay, and a shrinking middle class as the new normal,” Trump said. “In short, the American people were told to sit back and accept a slow, inevitable decline.” 

The Congressional Budget Office, he said, projected that the number of jobs would increase by just 2 million from January 2017 through the end of this year. The unemployment rate wasn’t supposed to get below 4.4% and was slated to start rising again in 2019.

The CBO said quarterly GDP growth over Trump’s first three years would never top 2.6% and would average 2%. 

As Trump rightly explains, this wasn’t inevitable. It was the result of an economy being suffocated by taxes and regulations. “If we lifted these burdens from our economy, and unleashed our people to pursue their ambitions and realize their limitless potential, then economic prosperity would come thundering back.”

Sorry Trump haters everywhere, but he was right. 

Muslim Brotherhood Subversion vs. Jihadist Rage The connection between ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Raymond Ibrahim

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/muslim-brotherhood-subversion-vs-jihadist-rage-raymond-ibrahim/

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

What do Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri—that is, the late leader of ISIS, and the late and current leaders of al-Qaeda—have in common? That they’re among the world’s most notorious Islamic terrorists?  Yes, but there’s something else, something more subtle, that binds them: they all began their careers as members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most widespread political Islamic organization in the world.

In a 2014 video interview, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi—a spiritual leader of the Brotherhood whose Al Jazeera program on shari‘a is watched by tens of millions of Muslims—asserted that “this youth [al-Baghdadi] was from the start among the top ranks of the Brotherhood, but he was inclined to [positions of] leadership and so forth…  Then, after he spent years in prison [for Brotherhood activities] he came out and joined with them [the nascent Islamic State],” eventually becoming first “caliph.” (I first discussed this Qaradawi video soon after it appeared in 2014; predictably, YouTube has since taken it down, though Arabic websites still have it.)

In response, Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments (awqaf), Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Gom‘a had said that “Qaradawi’s confession [concerning al-Baghdadi] confirms that the Brotherhood is the spiritual father to every extremist group.”

Schiff, the Whole Schiff, and Nothing But the Schiff Democrats’ gala impeachment show devolves into pathetic display of duplicity. Lloyd Billingsley

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/schiff-whole-schiff-and-nothing-schiff-lloyd-billingsley/

In his opening statement Wednesday, Adam Schiff proclaimed that his impeachment show was about the survival of the American republic itself. Rep. Jim Jordan interrupted to ask when the committee would vote on the ability to address the vaunted “whistleblower,” known only to Schiff.

“That’s a false statement,” the intel committee boss said. “I do not know the identity of the whistleblower.” Viewers could note that Schiff was not under oath, and wonder what factual statements the Burbank Democrat might make.

Ranking Republican Devin Nunes described the hearing as a “televised theatrical performance.” The witnesses had “passed star chamber auditions” and been cast in a “low-rent” Ukrainian sequel to the Russia probe that smeared Trump as a Russian agent. The whole show was an “impeachment process in search of crime,” and Schiff’s first witness confirmed Nunes’ advance review.

George Kent bears some resemblance to actor Martin Sheen, but as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Kent is hardly a heavy hitter. Still, he touted his illustrious family and even dropped the name of Roger Staubach. As Kent testified, the brave Ukrainians were the equivalent of our own Minutemen, and American aid was an echo of French aid to the United States during the Revolution.