Displaying posts published in

January 2020

After his behavior at Davos, did Prince Charles snub Pence in Jerusalem? By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/after_his_behavior_at_davos_did_prince_charles_snub_pence_in_jerusalem.html

Although it’s hard to imagine now, back in the 1960s and 1970s, Prince Charles had a sort of glamour about him, a mixture of sophisticated playboy and Prince Charming. He was good looking(ish), athletic, and handled himself well at state affairs. His stock went up even higher when he married Lady Diana, a vapid young woman who wore clothes well and managed to catch the world’s imagination.

They were an ill-suited couple. He fancied himself an intellectual and she was a publicity-hungry, walking emotional wound. Their marital battles revealed him to be a sleazy, entitled, unkind, boring, pompous, unfaithful lout. When Diana died, Charles re-fashioned his image. He was the good father to his boys, and he got to marry the woman he loved, the horsey, but good-natured, Camilla.

Camilla or not, Charles is still a pompous, hypocritical boor. His latest unpleasant behavior involves climate change and, possibly, Vice President Pence. When it comes to climate change, Charles made obeisance to the shrill, neurotic Greta Thunberg and endorsed plans to destroy the world economy — but he still doesn’t think the socialist belt-tightening that goes with climate change applies to him (emphasis added):

Prince Charles demanded global green taxes as part of a radical push to tackle climate change in a seminal speech at Davos today.

The Prince of Wales met Greta Thunberg at the Word Economic Forum after flying in to Switzerland on a private jet – but did not hold talks with Donald Trump.

Charles even sounded like the 17-year-old Swedish activist as he asked VIPs: ‘Do we want to go down in history as the people who didn’t do anything to bring the world back from the brink? The only limit is our willingness to act and the time to act is now’.

He then begged delegates, including wealthy global business leaders: ‘This is why I need your help, your ingenuity and your practical skills to ensure that the private sector leads the world out of the approaching catastrophe into which we have engineered ourselves.’

Speaking just 24 hours after President Trump used his speech to reject environmental ‘prophets of doom’, Charles called for new eco-taxes, greener fuels and hydrogen-powered planes by 2030.

Interesting things are happening in Iran following Soleimani’s death By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/interesting_things_are_happening_in_iran_following_soleimanis_death.html

When President Trump ordered the military to strike Qassem Soleimani, a legitimate military target responsible for the deaths of hundreds of troops, Democrats were up in arms. How dare Trump bait the Iranians by striking someone so close to Ayatollah Khamenei? They were certain that Trump had just ignited World War III.

Republicans were more confident that the strike would, at the very least, remove a dangerous character from the Iranians’ forty-year-long war against America and, at the best, topple the regime. This last belief was based upon the fact that the Iranian regime is fragile now that Trump walked away from Obama’s terrible Iran Plan and reinstated sanctions. The economy is collapsing and people all over Iran are coming out in protest. After forty years of a repressive theocracy, the Persian people, a people accustomed to beauty and life, have had their fill of Islam’s cruel puritanism.

Michael Ledeen, an experienced foreign policy observer, thinks that the Republicans may have been correct because there are strange doings in Iran – all good if one wants to see that abysmal regime collapse:

The elimination of Qassem Soleimani has produced surprising results. It turns out that the United States received intelligence on Soleimani’s movements from a variety of sources, some within his Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, others from Israel’s vaunted intelligence apparatus. 

Son of Muslim Immigrant Joins Nazis, Vandalizes Wisconsin Synagogue Does America have such a Nazi shortage that we need immigration to import more? Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/01/son-muslim-immigrant-joins-nazis-vandalizes-daniel-greenfield/

In Wisconsin, the dairy capital of the nation, Muslims and Nazis revisited their old alliance when Yousef Barasneh, the son of a Jordanian immigrant active in the Muslim community, joined the Neo-Nazi group, The Base (which shares the meaning of its name with Al Qaeda), and vandalized a synagogue.

The synagogue, Beth Israel Sinai Congregation in Racine, had the term, “Jude”, German for “Jew”, swastikas, the symbol of the Nazi Secret Service, and The Base white supremacist symbol, scrawled on it in September. Later that year, a Base leader ratted out Yousef as the perpetrator to the FBI.

When communicating with his Neo-Nazi pals, Yousef anglicized or polonized his Arabic first name to “Joseph” or “Josef”. Despite his Muslim convert mother’s Polish ancestry, Yousef might not have been confident of the welcome he would receive as “Yousef” from a white supremacist organization.

But when The Base called for vandalizing synagogues, the son of a Jordanian immigrant was eager.

“Imagine if across the country on local news, Everyone is reporting on new nazi presence,” he wrote in Nazi chat. “Our op will be a perfect f___ you to these kikes if we become terrorists.”

Must America Be in the Middle East? By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/02/10/must-america-be-in-the-middle-east/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_

Yes, but the strategic considerations have changed

Since World War II, the United States has identified a number of national interests in the Greater Middle East, a region often defined quite loosely as the Arab nations (including those of North Africa), Israel, and sometimes Turkey, as well as Iran, the Horn of Africa countries, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

During the Cold War period, from 1946 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, American bipartisan foreign policy identified a strategic need for the region’s petroleum. Gulf oil was seen as critical in augmenting America’s own seemingly finite supply or ensuring the free world’s access to it. Thus was born the post-war U.S. realist interest in the Middle East — a region that after the 15th-century discovery of the New World lost the strategic global position it had held since classical antiquity.

The United States backed most prominently the House of Saud and neighboring Persian Gulf monarchies and dictatorships on the rationale that they would endlessly pump oil and sell it to the West at a fair price. British Petroleum enjoyed a more or less controlling oil interest in Iran, and U.S. oil companies had a free hand in Saudi Arabia; both nations maneuvered with other regimes to develop oil-exporting industries. The ensuing conspiracy theories, coups, and succession scraps of Arab and Persian strongmen fueled a half century of “Great Satan” chanting and the burning of American flags on the Middle East street.

Schiff, Hamilton and Impeachment Plus, new allegations against Senate jurors. By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiff-hamilton-and-impeachment-11579813089?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Senate jurors are responding in different ways to the impeachment case being made by House Democrats. “Gum-chewing, snacking, yawning and alleged napping could be seen throughout the cramped chamber,” reports Laurie Kellman of the Associated Press. But just because a prosecution’s case is boring doesn’t mean it can’t also be misleading. Senators should take care to examine the historical record on impeachments.

As for the napping allegations being leveled against multiple lawmakers, Lee Moran writes at HuffPost:

Sleepy and absent senators attracted the wrath of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday night as the “All In” host chastised them for not focusing 100% on the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
“These peoples’ jobs is to do this,” Hayes said during a panel discussion on reports that at least one GOP lawmaker had fallen asleep during proceedings and others had left the chamber for extended periods.
“I mean, this is literally the job,” Hayes continued. “If you find it too annoying or frustrating or uncomfortable to sit for eight hours and listen, you can resign tomorrow and go get another job. Like, this is your job.”

Of course many voters would disagree with Mr. Hayes and insist that the trial is a partisan detour from the job of representing the interests of constituents. Such voters might also point out that among the lawmakers charged with napping offenses, not all are Republicans.

The A.P.’s Ms. Kellman reports:

Almost immediately after Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled in Wednesday’s session of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, bored and weary senators started openly flouting some basic guidelines in a chamber that prizes decorum…
A Democrat in the back row leaned on his right arm, covered his eyes and stayed that way for nearly a half-hour. Some openly snickered when lead prosecutor Adam Schiff said he’d only speak for 10 minutes. And when one of the freshman House prosecutors stood to speak, many of the senator-jurors bolted for the cloak rooms, where their phones are stored.
… Well into Schiff’s second hour of opening arguments, he moved on from discussing the first of two charges against Trump.
“Now let me turn to the second article,” Schiff said. That prompted several senators to shift in their seats and smile at each other in apparent bemusement.

If Mr. Schiff fibbed about the length of his oration, the transgression hardly compares to the years he spent making a bogus claim of “more than circumstantial” evidence of Russian collusion. Nor does it compare to his false claim regarding contacts with the so-called “whistleblower” he used to trigger impeachment, nor his false claim that the “whistleblower” has a “statutory right” to remain anonymous.   CONTINUE AT SITE

A Closer Look At The Iraqi Immigrant Woman Challenging Rep. Ilhan Omar by Erielle Davidson

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/23/a-closer-look-at-the-iraqi-immigrant-woman-challenging-rep-ilhan-omar/
Baghdad-born Dalia al-Aqidi says Rep. Illhan Omar ‘supports Islamists and enemies of America and Israel, and there are no exceptions.’

In 2004, the Chicago Tribune referred to her as “the most watched TV reporter nobody in America has seen,” and this turn-of-phrase seemed stunningly apt. Baghdad-born Dalia al-Aqidi was 36, and a fixture of Middle East media. In sharp contrast to programming on Qatar’s popular Al-Jazeera, Dalia was a leading voice on Alhurra, an American-sponsored television channel broadcasting in the Middle East and delivering a strongly pro-America message.

Al-Aqidi was the only Iraqi covering the 2004 presidential campaign within the traveling White House press corps, providing news on Washington to millions in the Arabic-speaking world. Fifteen years later, the famed Iraqi reporter is running for Congress against the darling of the left, also an immigrant from a Muslim-majority country, a woman named Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.

Omar was catapulted to leftist fame after being elected to represent Minnesota’s Fifth District in the 2018 midterms and espousing radically left-wing policies. She eventually joined forces with three other socialist-leaning, freshman voices in the House, the anti-Trump foursome collectively being referred to as the “Squad.” But Omar will have competition in the coming election from al-Aqidi. 

David Marcus:National Review’s Dangerous Third Way On Impeachment

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/23/national-reviews-dangerous-third-way-on-impeachment/

An editorial at National Review badly misunderstands the Republican position on impeachment and the future of the conservative movement.

The editors at National Review published a baffling editorial today on the impeachment saga, one which, if its advice is taken, could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

The article makes three basic points. One, Republican senators actually think what Trump did was wrong and want a way to say so; two, the GOP ought to admit what Trump did was wrong but does not justify removal; and three, the argument that without a crime a president can’t be removed is legally unsound.

Let’s take each in their turn and then examine the effect that taking on this entire suite of positions would have on impeachment and the general political climate.

The first assertion is that “Senate Republicans, by and large, have reached an unspoken consensus about President Trump and Ukraine,” namely that he should not have delayed aid, or dared suggest investigations that might impact potential political rival Joe Biden, and should not have kept insisting that his call was perfect. Frankly, there is no evidence of such a consensus among Republican senators, and much to suggest that it simply does not exist.

Since the beginning of this recent unpleasantness we have been hearing that behind closed doors Republicans in Congress are very worried. Prominent members of the Never Trump movement had assured us that their intel promised more than a few GOP votes to impeach Trump in the House existed. In reality, there were none. Now National Review, without any proof, appears to be making the same calculation for the Senate.

There is sparse evidence of this. Take Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, who said this week that what Trump did didn’t amount to a speeding ticket. He went on to say that what came out of the House was an abuse of the Constitution for political purposes. This does not sound like somebody waffling on whether Trump committed some foul act. And let’s face it, Cruz is far more representative of the GOP Senate caucus and the voters they represent as opposed to a Susan Collins or Mitt Romney, who sometimes take the bold stance of hinting at being troubled.

Trump draws battle lines against Democrats and ‘prophets of doom’ at Davos By Rupert Darwall

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/479422-trump-draws-battle-lines-against-democrats-and-prophets-of-doom-at?rnd=1579723727

It is not hard to see why Democrats are desperate to use any means to prevent President Trump from standing for reelection. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump defined the battle lines between himself and the eventual Democratic nominee. The president has a compelling story to tell on what he calls America’s blue-collar boom: 7 million jobs gained; record-low 3.5 percent unemployment; more women in employment than men; record low unemployment of African Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and veterans; the return of U.S. manufacturing jobs; accelerating wage growth for the bottom 10 percent of wage-earners and for millennials.

It’s not only the numbers that should turn Democrats’ blood cold. Trump is going after the core voting blocs that make up the Democratic coalition — middle-class Americans, African-Americans and Hispanics. His priority is their priority: The wellbeing of the American worker. Democrats can’t say the same. Trump talks about living standards, while Democrats are obsessed with climate emergencies and saving the planet.

Cutting taxes and deregulation might sound like standard Republican fare. But no previous Republican president has tackled America’s perverse, uncompetitive corporate tax rates. After eight years of Barack Obama, the Trump administration’s record of one new regulation enacted for every eight rescinded marks a major reversal in the growth of the administrative state. 

Dangerous Historical Precedent’: 21 State AGs Send Letter Asking Senate To Reject Impeachment By Ashe Schow

https://www.dailywire.com/news/dangerous-historical-precedent-

The attorneys general of 21 states — predictably all Republicans — have sent a letter to the Senate opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Fox News exclusively reported on the letter, which was submitted to the Senate on Wednesday morning and called the impeachment “a dangerous historical precedent.”

“If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers,” the attorneys general wrote.

“Impeachment should never be a partisan response to one party losing a presidential election. If successful, an impeachment proceeding nullifies the votes of millions of citizens. The Democrat-controlled House passing of these constitutionally-deficient articles of impeachment amounts, at bottom, to a partisan political effort that undermines the democratic process itself. Even an unsuccessful effort to impeach the President undermines the integrity of the 2020 presidential election because it weaponizes a process that should only be initiated in exceedingly rare circumstances and should never be used for partisan purposes,” they continued.

The attorneys general added: “This body should never permit impeachment proceedings to proceed where they are permeated with the clearly partisan objective of energizing a political party’s base to, ultimately, influence a presidential election. Such a raw political and unconstitutional use of the impeachment power should not be countenanced by the Senate.”

Here’s A Tipping Point The Left Wants You To Ignore by John Merline

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/01/23/heres-a-tipping-point-the-left-wants-you-to-ignore/

Recently, the majority of the world became middle class or rich thanks to capitalism.

In an interview this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez complained that the Democratic Party wasn’t sufficiently leftist because it hasn’t embraced her style of socialism. “There are a lot of true believers that we can ‘capitalism’ our way out of poverty,” she complained. 

We doubt there are very many such believers remaining in the Democratic Party, given that 70% of those who identify as Democrats now have a positive view of socialism.

To the extent that there are any free market capitalists left in the Democratic Party, it’s possible that they are true believers because they’ve seen the data, which make it abundantly clear that capitalism has been the greatest anti-poverty program ever conceived by mankind.

The Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank in Washington, D.C., found that, “for the first time since agriculture-based civilization began 10,000 years ago, the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty.”

The report – which came out more than a year ago – showed that more than 50% of the world’s population lived in households with enough discretionary income to be considered middle class or rich.

More specifically, it found that there were 3.59 billion people in the middle class in 2017, and 200 million who are rich. At the other end, there are 3.2 billion they classify as “vulnerable” and 630 million who are poor.