RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-taiwan-progress-11562971520

Deterring Chinese military dominance in the Indo-Pacific is a top U.S. strategic goal, and the Trump Administration made progress this week with a tentative $2.2 billion arms sale to Taiwan. The next sale should be F-16V fighter jets, which is the island’s most pressing defense need.

The Pentagon on Monday notified Congress of the sale of 108 M1A2T Abrams tanks, 250 Stinger missiles, and transport vehicles. Lawmakers have 30 days to object to the deal, but that’s unlikely given the near-unanimous backing of pro-Taiwan legislation in Congress in recent years.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang called on the U.S. to “immediately cancel” the deal, and on Friday China said it will sanction U.S. companies that participate in the arms sale. That’s mostly symbolic since China doesn’t buy arms from the U.S.

But what Beijing has never understood is its starring role in consolidating Washington’s cooperation with Taipei. Last month’s voyage of the Chinese Liaoning aircraft carrier through the Taiwan Strait is the type of saber-rattling that increases American support for the island’s democracy, as Taiwanese want little more than to preserve their freedom.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/11/time-different-anti-semitism-could-finally-sink-labour/

The crisis may now cost Labour significant votes

What is left to be said about Labour and anti-Semitism? The moment when a reconciliation could be effected by the party’s present leadership passed long ago. The majority of British Jewish community organisations and the leadership of Labour’s own affiliate, the Jewish Labour Movement, believe that Jeremy Corbyn is at best a facilitator of anti-Semitism and at worst an anti-Semite himself. According to the pollster Survation, which accurately predicted the result of the 2017 election, 86 per cent of British Jews believe that the Labour leader is anti-Semitic.

There is division over exactly when the point of no return was reached. For some it was Corbyn’s defence of an anti- Semitic mural, for others it was his comment that two British Zionists  had “no sense of irony”,  for a few it was the repeated indulgence of Chris Williamson. But they are united on the important fact, which is that the moment of redemption has been and gone.

As far as the struggle for power in the United Kingdom as a whole is concerned, the lesson of both the recent and the distant past, is that the row doesn’t really matter. The history of race relations is that majorities tend not to consider the fears of minorities when they cast their votes. Outside of the handful of constituencies where Britain’s Jews gather in significant numbers, there is no evidence that Labour’s anti-Semitism problem cost the party electorally in the 2017 election.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274276/tale-two-cities-bruce-bawer

For the last couple of days, journalists and politicians all over London have been wringing their hands in despair over the disrespectful treatment accorded to a stellar Englishman. No, not Tommy Robinson. Kim Darroch. Sorry: Sir Kim Darroch. Yes, he’s a guy – Kim as in Kim Philby or Kim Jong Un, not Kim Novak. Since 2016, not that you or I would’ve known it, he’s been the UK Ambassador to the US. Before that he was Britain’s National Security Advisor, and before that he was his country’s Permanent Representative to the EU, an organization of which he is known to be exceedingly fond. In short, a career diplomat with predictable PC politics.

And the kind of faceless civil servant whom the public never notices until, as happened the other day, a scandal erupts around him. On July 5, the Mail on Sunday reported on leaked secret cables in which Darroch described the Trump White House as “dysfunctional,” “unpredictable,” “diplomatically clumsy and inept,” and torn by factional conflict, said that Trump himself had led a life “mired in scandal” and might well be indebted to “dodgy Russians,” and warned, after the President’s recent state visit to London, that Trump’s USA “is still the land of America First.”

On wonders: why keep some jerk on the payroll for this kind of stuff when you can get the same thing twenty-four hours a day on CNN or MSNBC? One also wonders: what kind of fatuity, or chutzpah, does it take for an envoy representing the worst prime minister and lamest government in modern British history to describe the most successful American president of our lifetimes as dysfunctional and inept? And one further wonders: did Darroch, while serving in Washington during the last days of the Obama administration, ever once express concern about Barack’s and Hillary’s numerous scandals and “dodgy” foreign connections?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/10/donald-trump-knows-boris-man-get-brexit-done-resuscitate-uk/

It is perhaps unsurprising that the British ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, felt the need to resign after Donald Trump’s condemnation of comments he made in leaked diplomatic cables. But the ambassador’s critical views of the White House point to a wider problem.

Despite the success of the president’s state visit to Britain, Trump and Theresa May have long been worlds apart in terms of vision, outlook and approach. There is no chemistry between them, and May has shown little interest in building a partnership with Trump, frequently siding with the EU over the US on foreign policy matters. The special relationship has been left weakened.

This week’s diplomatic spat will not, however, alter the reality that the alliance will be in a far better place once May steps down. Here in Washington, the expectation is that Boris Johnson will be in Downing Street on July 24, and will immediately be America’s most important ally. For the US, a Johnson premiership represents a powerful opportunity to reignite the special relationship.

The US is not taking sides in the Tory leadership contest, but there is an acute understanding in the Oval Office that Johnson represents a distinctly pro-American outlook with a deep-seated affinity for the transatlantic alliance. Johnson, after all, was born in New York, and was until recently a US citizen. He has been a frequent visitor to the US and is well known in political circles here.

This bodes well for Britain. Many Americans admire Johnson’s record as mayor of London, and view him as an exciting personality, with a dash of Churchillian brilliance, who is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom and get things done.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/who_really_speaks_for_gazans_.html

The Hashemite king of Jordan claims to speak for the Gazans. So do Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and the Muslim Brotherhood (and its backer, Qatar). Now two native Gazans speak out.

……”Why Is nobody listening to the voice of Gazans?

As the prospect of Middle East peace phases in and out, one has to realize that it’s been a long and nasty 13 years since Hamas ruthlessly took over Gaza in a coup disguised as an election.

The ups and down experienced by Gaza’s citizens have netted not just 2 wars, but economic problem after economic problem. As complaints have risen, a variety of spokespeople have stepped forward. They represent 2 specific types of representations. The first comes from the “Government”, and in all cases such as Jordan, Qatar, and others, these are either Kings or Dictators, or both. The second comes from groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas.

What ties these groups together is a series of anomalies, all of which raise two very important questions: “How can they speak for Palestinians?” And, “If not them, then who?”

The Hashemite King of Jordan claims to speak for the Gazans, but how can he when he has a country’s needs to represent? He openly states that he is the sole “moderate” negotiator between the Palestinians and Israel and the West, but under Abdullah’s 20-year reign, what has he negotiated? All he has done is line his pockets at the expense of Palestinians.

The Muslim Brotherhood claims to represent us, but how? As far as we know, this terrorist organization is so destructive that most Islamic countries do not allow them to operate.  They are classified as terrorists.  But apparently their best friend is the King of Jordan because he allows them to operate.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) – the recognized governing body – represents no one except the needs of Abbas and his leaders, who live in luxury both in and out of the country.  They are impudent, and quite frankly, no one pays attention to them. For example, Gaza is being strangled by Hamas, who is supposed to take orders from the PA, yet they don’t.

Hamas is a political party that thrives on dictatorship, crushing the people, and lying to the world.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-iranian-vessels-tried-to-block-u-k-ship-from-passing-through-strait-of-hormuz-11562822874?cx_testId=30&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s

DUBAI—Iranian ships attempted to impede the passage of a U.K.-flagged commercial vessel through the Persian Gulf, the British Defense Ministry said, a move that threatens to escalate already high tensions in the region.

Three Iranian vessels tried to block the BP PLC -run tanker British Heritage in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday but were turned away by the presence of a U.K. warship, according to the ministry.

The incident is likely to further spook international shipping markets and investors and could accelerate U.S. moves to build a coalition of states to protect commercial vessels near Iranian waters, after a series of attacks on ships in recent months.

Front-month West Texas Intermediate futures recently were up 0.5% to $60.69, while Brent futures were 0.4% higher at $67.26.

The British Royal Navy frigate, HMS Montrose, issued verbal warnings to the Iranian ships before they backed away, the ministry said Thursday.

“We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region,” it said, adding that the attempt to block the British Heritage’s passage contravened international law.

A spokesman for the ministry added that the British Heritage had since left the Persian Gulf.

BP didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tommy Robinson GUILTY! Ezra Levant reacts – YouTube

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/07

Can successful and thriving communities and societies be built by letting people keep more of their own money, while granting them the freedoms they need to pursue their own destiny? Radical socialists and cultural marxists would think otherwise- surely a society left to its own devices would only degenerate into a stratified one where wealth is hoarded and culture is tainted by commercial motives rather than one where the pie is grown for everyone, and unique cultural identities are upheld. Yet historical episodes, from Ottoman-era Bulgaria to modern Hong Kong demonstrate otherwise.

Lower taxes offer the opportunity for the accumulation of enormous wealth for individuals, and society at large. Encouraging aspiration comes with the understanding that presumably, the empowered individual is best placed to resolve his or her own issues while spending their own money expediently. Rather than government cronies serving cultural and economic edicts to society and the individuals who comprise it, the intersection of open markets and civil society instead offer a more compelling alternative that doesn’t require centralised power or dipping into people’s pockets.

Hong Kong is a beacon of economic freedom is a region of the world that has long been under threat of Communist totalitarianism. Hong Kong is ranked number one on the Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Economic Freedom Index, a position it has held since the index’s inception in 1995. The city’s rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency, and open markets, all contribute to this rating.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14516/united-nations-free-speech

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.