Displaying posts published in

January 2020

SOROS, DEMS AND TERROR AND ANTISEMITISM

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/george-soros-buying-district-attorney-near-you/

George Soros, buying a district attorney near you
Cheryl Chumley, WashingtonTimes.com

‘Talk about trying to turn the judicial system into an activist camp for the left. It’s one thing to exercise one’s First Amendment rights to support candidates with similar political leanings. It’s another thing entirely to try and collapse a limited government republic, from the bottom up, and implement, in its place, a judicial branch filled with people who twist the Bill of Rights into something it’s not, the Constitution into something it was never intended to be, and the rule of law into a mocking tool for far-left gain.

With Soros-type candidates at the district attorney helm, it won’t be long before the crime of being conservative becomes a prosecutorial offense. “Soros is definitely trying to push a political view,” said one conservative, speaking to The Mercury News.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2020/01/12/why-america-wont-trust-terror-supporting-antisemitic-democrats-n2559379?

Why America Won’t Trust Terror Supporting, Anti-Semitic Democrats
Kevin McCullough, TownHall.com

‘The odd thing about those same Democrats, every time they have been briefed on something over the past three years it mysteriously made its way into the headlines of the Washington Post within minutes. Heck, they couldn’t even keep from leaking stuff about their own committees and things taking place in top-secret chambers as it related to impeachment. 

 Honestly, if you were Donald J. Trump, and the law only requires that you inform them of your action within 48 hours after it’s conclusion, would you even consider it?  Clinton didn’t. Obama didn’t. Why must President Trump handicap his own security mechanisms and give the terrorist the chance to get away? 

Why is it only Democrats who give cover for openly anti-Semitic statements from their members? Why was it only Democrats who defended the “rights” of a terrorist who had killed and maimed far more than bin Laden? Why was it only Democrats who rushed to restate the propaganda of our enemies as gospel truth? And why was it only the Democrats who have yet to issue support for the Iranians, Canadians, and Ukrainians who want justice for the “innocently stupid” actions that brought down that jet-liner? In fact… why was it Democratic President Barack Obama who gave Iran the money it needed to fund the nightmare in the first place?’ 

The Soros Cabal attacks Sen. Cotton’s critique of AntiSemitism By Rachel Ehrenfeld

http://acdemocracy.org/

Senator Tom Cotton ((R-AR), important speech on the Alarming Rise of Anti-Semitic Attacks — And How to Stop Them, on the floor of the U.S. Senate on January 8, should be read by all. 
 
The Senator’s warning should have been praised in the headlines of all major media outlets in the U.S., and Israel. But it was mentioned only in a few Jewish and Israeli newspapers, mostly Left-leaning. Though the Senator did not mention George Soros, the headline of the Israeli Left-leaning daily – and New York Times’ partner, Haaretz – screamed: “Sen. Tom Cotton accuses Soros-funded think tank of fostering antisemitism,” implying – as they, and most other progressive radical-Left outlets who act as Soros’s bandogs – that anyone critical of any of many Soros initiatives, is an anti-Semite. 
 
What did Sen. Cotton say to anger Haaretz?  
 
“Anti-Semitism is the ancient hatred, but today it can appear in new disguises. It festers on Internet message boards and social media,” said the Senator. He then had the Chutzpa pointing out that anti-Semitism, “festers in so-called Washington think tanks like the Quincy Institute, [emphasis added] an isolationist blame-America-first money pit for so-called “scholars” who’ve written that American foreign policy could be fixed if only it were rid of the malign influence of Jewish money.” 
 
The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft was founded and funded last year by Charles Koch and George Soros. Koch, the isolationist libertarian billionaire, funder of mostly ultra-right causes critical of U.S. foreign policy, is known, like Soros, for sponsoring academicians and events denouncing alleged Israeli influence in Washington. Koach, who isn’t Jewish, did not make it to Haaretz’s headline. 

ELECTIONS ARE COMING: CHIP ROY FOR CONGRESS (R-TEXAS- DISTRICT 20)

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/13/in-wake-of-iran-strike-cong
In Wake Of Iran Strike, Congress Needs To Debate Overseas Deployments By Chip Roy

Rep. Chip Roy is running for reelection. To help and learn about him go to:https://chiproy.com/

Missed amid the partisan fervor following the death of terrorist leader Qassem Suleimani was the unique opportunity it presented Congress to come to a national consensus about the U.S. presence in the Middle East. After 18 years at war without so much as a debate in Congress about the extent to which our men and women in uniform are deployed overseas, President Trump’s decision to take out the Iranian general last week catalyzed a national conversation between Republicans and Democrats.

Setting aside opinions about whether the president was correct in his decision to take out Suleimani, I and colleagues on both sides of the aisle raised concerns about our mission, strategic objectives, and presence in the dozen countries we now operate in under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

As you may recall, the 2001 AUMF was passed in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The men and women who have deployed under the AUMF have bled around the globe to protect liberty and the national security of the United States and our allies. They’ve accomplished a great deal, too.

Ben Rhodes Attacks Trump To Obscure Obama’s Complicity In Iran’s Forever War Ben Weingarten

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/13/ben-rhodes-attacks-trump-to-obscure-obamas-complicity-in-irans-forever-war/

Despite Rhodes’ propaganda, America is in a far stronger position to deal with Iran’s provocations under Trump than at any time since Obama entered office.

Peevish Obama national security official Ben Rhodes of “we can tell journalists anything and they’ll believe it” fame recently published an editorial in The Atlantic ripping the president’s recent dealings with Iran. Rhodes’ ripostes flow from the president’s game-changing retaliatory strike on the Obama administration partner — and leading terrorist of the leading terror force of the world’s leading terror regime — Qassem Soleimani.

Rhodes’ Atlantic retorts to Trump’s foreign policy have been as mendacious as his tweets are manic.

As he did with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Rhodes is again working to manipulate the press — who, in his words, “literally know nothing” — by farcically contrasting the Obama Iran policy with the Trump one. The media seems a willing partner, what with the wake-like atmosphere it has created over a genocidal jihadist’s demise, and the irresponsible war hysteria it has ginned up.

In spite of Rhodes’ cynicism, disingenuousness, and demonstrable Trump hatred, his arguments demand countering, since he and his minions lead the Democrats’ progressive foreign policy wing.

The Iran Deal Strengthened the Mullahs

Rhodes’ first major contention is that the Iran nuclear deal rolled back its program, and Iran was complying with it. Both elements of this argument are at best highly misleading. To make the case, Rhodes commits sins of omission and commission about the deal, its context, and purpose.

Perpetrators of Anti-Semitic Jersey City Shooting Had Powerful Bomb Hidden in Van By Zachary Evans

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/perpetrators-of-anti-semitic-jersey-city-shooting-had-powerful-bomb-hidden-in-van/

The perpetrators of an anti-Semitic shooting in Jersey City had a bomb in their van with the ability to kill people almost half a mile away, federal investigators revealed on Monday.

David Anderson and Francine Graham opened fire at the JC Koshoper Supermarket on December 10, killing three inside the store and setting off an hours-long gun battle with police. Shortly before the attack on the supermarket, Anderson and Graham killed New Jersey Detective Joseph Seals in a standoff at a cemetery in Jersey City. Seals was investigating the perpetrators’ U-Haul van, which had been linked to an earlier shooting.

“We believe [Seals] threw off a broader plan,” said U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito at a press conference with the local head of the FBI. Carpentino added that the detective’s actions “probably saved dozens if not more lives.”

Authorities could not reveal if they had any additional information on a plan by the perpetrators to target other locations, except that they had researched a Jewish community center in Bayonne, not far from Jersey City.

A Critical Defense of Common Sense By Scott Segrest

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/book-review-reclaiming-common-sense-pushes-back-against-intellectual-cultural-elites/

Our intellectual and cultural elites have become unmoored from common sense; a new book charts a course for restoring it.

Robert Curry’s Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World is a companion volume to his earlier Common Sense Nation. Both books are apologias, defenses against certain attacks by our intellectual and cultural elites on the foundations of American life, which the American Founders understood in terms of “common sense.” As Curry elaborates, “While Common Sense Nation addresses the challenge to the American founding by presenting anew the Founders’ understanding of what they were establishing”—an understanding rooted in Scottish “common sense realism”—“Reclaiming Common Sense takes up . . . the challenge to the foundation of the founding”—commonsense rationality itself. Ultimately, he wants to “restore a trust in common sense and an understanding of its crucial role in our lives” as human beings and as American citizens.

A good catch-all term for the elites’ alternative to common sense is “political correctness,” an ideological party line much akin to the Newspeak of Orwell’s 1984 that tries to prohibit not only honest questions but even acknowledgement of facts in plain view. Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes? And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! From denying basic biology in favor of infinitely fluid “gender identity” to condemning commonsense measures against Islamic terrorism as “Islamophobia,” there is no fact so obvious it won’t be discounted whenever it should cross or inhibit whatever agenda du jour elites deem “progressive.” Political correctness is, in short, a “war on common sense.”

But what exactly is common sense? It turns out to be much harder to describe and explain common sense than just to have it. Describing and explaining it, however, becomes necessary when what would be taken for granted in a healthy social situation comes under relentless assault by deconstructionist, fundamentally nihilistic “intellectuals” and ideologues (not to be confused with philosophers) who because of their pedigrees and because of their fearsome passion may intimidate and undermine the confidence of people not prepared to handle the onslaught. In such a context, which we face today, we need a few insightful, bold, and eloquent people to step into the breach and put up a reasoned defense—people like Robert Curry.

Our intellectual and cultural elites have become unmoored from common sense; a new book charts a course for restoring it.

Robert Curry’s Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth World is a companion volume to his earlier Common Sense Nation. Both books are apologias, defenses against certain attacks by our intellectual and cultural elites on the foundations of American life, which the American Founders understood in terms of “common sense.” As Curry elaborates, “While Common Sense Nation addresses the challenge to the American founding by presenting anew the Founders’ understanding of what they were establishing”—an understanding rooted in Scottish “common sense realism”—“Reclaiming Common Sense takes up . . . the challenge to the foundation of the founding”—commonsense rationality itself. Ultimately, he wants to “restore a trust in common sense and an understanding of its crucial role in our lives” as human beings and as American citizens.

A good catch-all term for the elites’ alternative to common sense is “political correctness,” an ideological party line much akin to the Newspeak of Orwell’s 1984 that tries to prohibit not only honest questions but even acknowledgement of facts in plain view. Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes? And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! From denying basic biology in favor of infinitely fluid “gender identity” to condemning commonsense measures against Islamic terrorism as “Islamophobia,” there is no fact so obvious it won’t be discounted whenever it should cross or inhibit whatever agenda du jour elites deem “progressive.” Political correctness is, in short, a “war on common sense.”

ELECTIONS ARE COMING: MIKE GALLAGHER (R-WISCONSIN-DISTRICT 8)

GOP Congressman: House Dems’ War Powers Resolution ‘Unserious’ and ‘Purely Political Document’ By Nicholas Ballasy

https://pjmedia.com/trending/gop-congressman-house-dems-war-powers-resolution-unserious-and-purely-political-document/

TO HELP THIS OUTSTANDING CONGRESSMAN VISIT:

http://www.mikeforwisconsin.com/

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the War Powers Resolution that passed the House is an “unserious” and “purely political document.”

Gallagher was asked why he thinks the Trump administration would need authorization from Congress for the airstrike that killed Qasem Soleimani given that the Obama administration didn’t receive authorization for the war in Libya in 2011.

“It obviously wouldn’t be required because this was fundamentally a defensive action. The president has inherent authority under Article II to do what’s necessary to defend our troops against imminent threats. Furthermore, our troops are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government and pursuant to congressional authorization that Congress has never taken time to repeal,” Gallagher said during an exclusive interview.

“So I think it gets to a basic question of whether you want us to be in Iraq and believe in the mission and I view this War Powers Resolution, if you read the document, as an unserious document; as a purely political document; as an attempt to criticize the president without asking the harder questions about what we need to be doing in the region to push back Iran,” he added.

Gallagher, who served in the Marines, shared his reaction to the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. troops from the country following the airstrike.

Meghan and Harry haven’t been criticized because of her color but because she’s a selfish social climber and he’s a weak whiner – and by playing this despicable race card they have grossly libeled all of Britain By Piers Morgan

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7881661/PIERS-MORGAN-playing-despicable-race-card-Meghan-Harry-libeled-Britain.html

It’s all down to racism And sexism. And bullying. And, of course, damaging to their mental health.

Yes, poor downtrodden vulnerable innocent Meghan and Harry have been suffering the full gamut of victimhood issues, as befits the most woke, over-sensitive, woe-is-me couple in the world.

That’s why they want to get off the royal train, we’re told.Except they don’t want to get off it at all. They just want to get off the boring bits.

They still want to be royal stars, they still want British taxpayers to fund a lot of their luxury lifestyles, and they still want to parade around the world as global celebrities trading off their royal titles.

But they don’t want to do any of the less glamorous hard yard stuff that goes with being a full-time working royal.

I’ve been watching this unedifying saga unfurl over the past few days with mounting fury.

Predominantly, at the disgracefully disrespectful way the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are treating Her Majesty the Queen.

How dare they try to lay down the law to our long-serving Monarch in this way?

How dare they not inform her about their demands before telling the world?

And how dare they so arrogantly announce they’re going to pursue a more ‘progressive’ agenda for the Royal Family without having the courtesy to run it past a woman who has presided on the throne for more than six decades – and done a magnificent job of it.

But I’m also enraged by the specific growing narrative that the only reason Meghan’s been so harshly criticised by the media is because we’re all a bunch of racists living in a racist country.

That’s just a downright lie.

And a particularly nasty, disingenuous lie.

Sussex Dimwits:Meghan Markle, Prince Harry refuse to live in LA until Trump leaves office

https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2020/01/13/meghan-markle-prince-harry-refuse-to-live-in-la-until-trump-leaves-office-report/23899886/

Ever since Meghan Markle and Prince Harry announced they were stepping back from royal duties last week, royal fans have been speculating about where the couple will call home. 

In the Sussex’s bombshell announcement on Wednesday, the couple revealed that they intend to split their time between the United Kingdom and North America, leaving many to believe that Canada will become the couple’s second home. Not only is the Commonwealth country where Meghan and Harry spent the bulk of their six-week break from duties over the holidays, but it’s also where the duchess and Archie have been living since the royal shakeup.

However, according to new reports, Meghan and Harry have their eyes set on Los Angeles as their “long-term plan,” but not while President Trump is in office. 

“It’s by no means an immediate thing but there is a long-term plan to end up back in the US with a second home in Canada, where they will also spent a great deal of time,” a source told the Daily Mail.

Vandana Shiva Is A Shameful Choice For University Lecturer Henry I. Miller and Drew L. Kershen

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/01/13/vandana-shiva-is-a-shameful-choice-for-university-lecturer/

The “Social Justice Warrior Handbook,” which satirizes people who promote liberal, multicultural, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and politically correct views, could have had Indian activist and mountebank Vandana Shiva on the cover. She opposes the tools and practices of modern agriculture and science — and well, modernity in general — and advocates regressive policies that cause widespread malnourishment, famine, and death to the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.

It’s particularly ironic, then, that at the end of this month, two esteemed California universities — Stanford and the University of California, Santa Cruz — have invited Shiva to present prestigious lectures. That’s hardly surprising, given the extremist, “progressive” leanings of those institutions, but it is disturbing, nevertheless. Although she gets good press from left-wing and radical environmental publications, and naïve undergraduates dote on her, Shiva is widely considered by the scientific community to be unbalanced (in both senses of the word) for advocating unsound, harmful policies and promulgating disproven theories about agriculture.     

As science writer Jon Entine and Monsanto science communicator Dr. Cami Ryan discussed, many of Shiva’s hobby horses have proven to be exceedingly lame. Some prominent examples:

The “Green Revolution.” The new varieties and practices of the Green Revolution provided greater food security to hundreds of millions of people in developing countries on much of the planet; it made available high-yielding varieties of wheat and also new agronomic and management practices that transformed the ability of Mexico, India, Pakistan, China, and parts of South America to feed their populations. From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.7 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland — an extraordinary increase in yield per acre of more than 150%.