NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Amy Coney Barrett and Who We Are as a Nation By Austin Ruse

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/25/amy-coney-barrett-and-who-we-are-as-a-nation/

We salute Trump for appointing a real believer to the high court. The stakes are nothing short of who we are as a people.

So, it’s Amy Coney Barrett. How great is that? Deo Gratias. For secularists and others out there, that means “thanks be to God.” He is the one who makes all things and keeps all things in existence, even you.

Amy believes that. Maybe that is shocking to you. She also believes that the meaning of her life and work is to see the face of God in the Beatific Vision and live with Him forever.

Once upon a time, these were unremarkable beliefs. They were commonly held. Not at all shocking as they are now.

There have been two competing visions of who we are as a people. One argues that we are a Christian nation and that we were founded that way, that Christianity has pride of place among all faiths, and that the roots of our governmental system are found in the Bible. There is another view: we may be a religious people, but our government may only ever be secular, that is, without God or religion.

Professor Stephen D. Smith of the University of San Diego School of Law calls these the “providentialist” and the “secularist” view. He writes, “Providentialists declare that God works in history, that it is important as a people to acknowledge, and that the community should actively instill such beliefs in children as a basis for civic virtue.” Secularists, on the other hand, “insist that acknowledgments of deity (if there is one) ought to be purely private and that government acts improperly if it enters into religion or expresses or endorses religious beliefs. Thus, what one constituency views as imperative, the other regards as forbidden.”

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Toward a Transformational Peace in the Middle East by Guy Millière

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16538/middle-east-transformational-peace

Both Arab countries and Israel will benefit immensely.

Palestinian leaders are suddenly discovering that, as the Arab saying goes, “The dogs bark but the caravan moves on” – possibly without them.

“We [realists] understand that only defeat will convince Palestinians like Mrs. Ashrawi, and through them Iranian, Turkish, Islamist, leftist, fascist, and other anti-Zionists, that the century-plus conflict is over, that Israel has prevailed, and that the time has come to give up on futile, painful, and genocidal ambitions.” — Daniel Pipes, Middle East Scholar.

If President Trump is able to continue following the bold, unconventional path he has traced, he will most likely succeed where all his predecessors have failed. What he has accomplished already — in less than four years, with so many forces determined to undermine him… is extraordinary.

“Trump has done more for peace in the Middle East in four years than any other American President in seventy-two years.” — Meyer Habib, member of the French National Assembly, i24 News, September 14, 2020.

On September 15, two peace agreements with Israel and known as The Abraham Accords – one with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and one with Bahrain, and — were made official at a White House ceremony. President Donald J. Trump spoke of a “historic breakthrough” and a “previously unthinkable regional transformation”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu added that the world is witnessing “the dawn of a new Middle East “.

The agreements, which come 26 years after the last peace treaty, between Jordan and Israel, mark a further step towards the integration of Israel in the region.

The UAE and Bahrain are the first Arab countries to recognize Israel without requiring any concession from Israel (Netanyahu said that the extension of Israeli sovereignty to parts of Judea-Samaria and the Jordan Valley was suspended, not canceled) and without any American financial contribution involved.

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Cultural Marxism For The Kids The Left’s plan to disfigure America moves forward. Larry Sand

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/09/cultural-marxism-kids-larry-sand/

The results of a survey released last week revealed that two-thirds of 18-39 year-old Americans do not know that 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust. One-half of the respondents could not name a single concentration camp. One-fourth said the holocaust was a myth and one-tenth blamed it on the Jews.

I guess this shouldn’t come as a surprise. It is very much in line with other recent polls which find that just 27 percent of those under the age of 45 nationally can demonstrate a basic understanding of American history. Additionally, 57 percent  of all Americans don’t know we have nine Supreme Court justices, 60 percent don’t know which countries we fought in WWII, and only 32 percent can correctly name all three branches of government.

Instead of cleaning up its act, the education establishment is doubling down. In fact, America’s children are in the process of having their brains scrubbed clean. Instead of teaching actual history, we are seeing more and more curricula that is pointedly critical of America and its traditional values. Facts are irrelevant. Objectivity is non-existent. Lies are truth.

The new indoctrination is for the most part of the far-left race-obsessed variety. In Virginia, the state Board of Education is in the process of discussing recommendations set forth in a report commissioned by Governor Ralph Northam. It proposes revamping Virginia’s school curriculum, to include “critical race theory,” which claims that “whiteness” is a moral blight and that all white people are complicit in oppressing people of color.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Pakistani Attacks Charlie Hebdo Workers w/Meat Cleaver Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/09/pakistani-attacks-charlie-hebdo-workers-wmeat-daniel-greenfield/

The Religion of Peace would like to remind you that it’s still lethal even while everyone’s focused on a virus.

A man armed with a meat cleaver attacked and wounded two people on Friday who had stepped out for a cigarette in front of the Paris office building where Islamist militants gunned down employees of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo five years ago.

Police detained the man suspected of carrying out the attack soon after with bloodstains on his clothes next to the steps of an opera house about 500 metres (yards) away.

French officials said the attack was terrorism. A police source told Reuters the suspect was 18 years of age and of Pakistani origin.

A second suspect was detained and prosecutors were trying to establish his relation to the knife attacker. The second man is Algerian, according to the police source.

The staff of the magazine issued a statement expressing their support for the victims of Friday’s attack. “Far from terrorising us, such events should make us even more assertive in the defence of our values,” the statement said.

Pakistani and Algerian. Nothing to do with religion then.

 According to Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin, however, there is little doubt: “clearly it is an act of Islamist terrorism “, the minister said on France 2 this Friday evening.

The French can actually say the “I” word.

Meanwhile, these days, American conservatives want a medal for saying, “Radical Islamic terrorism” as if there are “moderate Islamic terrorists” to distinguish them for.

He was arrested a month ago “for carrying a prohibited weapon”, a “screwdriver”, when he was “still a minor”.

I presume we’ll shortly be saturated with claims that…

1. He suffered from mental illness

2. Was on drugs

3. Was entrapped by police

4. Was reacting to racism and economic oppression

… the 4 usual claims made by the pro-terror lobby in and out of the media.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

A Tale of Two Chinese Economies Beijing is promoting export-led growth as the domestic recovery lags.

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-tale-of-two-chinese-economies-11601075108?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

Investors around the world appear to be taking comfort in the revival of China’s economy, but the question has to be which Chinese economy they’re watching. There are two, and Beijing is subsidizing growth in the wrong one.

Look beyond encouraging data such as the second quarter’s above-3% GDP growth, and what’s reviving is the export-and-government-driven manufacturing economy. As of August, manufacturing investment is positive again and this is driving industrial production and exports.

But the Chinese economy comprised of household consumers—ordinary Chinese people—is stuck in the doldrums. The unemployment rate is falling, to 5.6% in August. But this measures only some urban workers, and the true level of unemployment and underemployment almost certainly is much higher. The best reason for optimism is that consumer spending perked up in August. This was mostly concentrated in luxury goods, however—and in China stockpiling jewelry and handbags constitutes a form of saving.

The explanation for this divergence is straightforward, as Kevin Rudd and Daniel Rosen explained recently in these pages. President Xi Jinping still talks a good game about economic reform, but he has all but abandoned many of the overhauls his predecessors attempted. In the broadest terms, China no longer seeks to attract a wide variety of foreign investment as a path toward higher productivity and more economic opportunities.

Instead, since the 2008 financial panic and especially since Mr. Xi took power in 2012, Beijing has relied on debt-fueled stimulus of manufacturers and local governments to avert recessions. The trend is pronounced in the months since the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

ELECTIONS, FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

Trump Broadside Against Communist China Reveals Biden’s Achilles’ Heel Ben Weingarten ,

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-broadside-against-communist-china-reveals-bidens-achilles-heel-opinion-1534160

President Donald Trump used the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to deliver a powerful broadside against the great adversary of our time, communist China.

His speech served as a timely reminder of one of the critical differences between himself and the cellar-dwelling Democrat establishment doyen-turned-Trojan Horse of the Left opposing him, former Vice President Joe Biden.

The difference is this: President Trump, long a critic of the globalist establishment’s China policy of integration and accommodation, has matched his word with deed as commander-in-chief, comprehensively confronting the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Former Vice President Biden, long a cheerleader of, and central player in, the very globalist establishment project that propelled the PRC to great power status, can only today—after 47 years of contrary behavior and while “running” for president—muster half-hearted criticism of China, unbacked by any discernible plan to counter it.

During his UNGA speech, President Trump excoriated the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for having “unleashed this plague [the coronavirus] on the world,” with an assist from the CCP-captured World Health Organization. He demanded that the UN hold China accountable for its actions.

This was the kind of direct attack on the PRC at a preeminent international forum that no predecessor in the post-Richard Nixon era, save perhaps President Ronald Reagan, would have dared make.

BOOKS Comments turned off

Marsha Blackburn Explores the Mind of a Conservative Woman By Elise Cooper

Posted By on September 26th, 2020

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/09/marsha_blackburn_explores_the_mind_of_a_conservative_woman.html

The Mind of a Conservative Woman by Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is an insightful commentary for all women regardless of their political affiliation.  Blackburn delves into maintaining the traditions of family, freedom, faith, a free market, and respecting those with differing opinions. 

She exclaimed, “Nearly a decade ago, I wrote the book, Life Equity.  My literary agent told me I should write a second book.  I laid out the premise of the new book.  I thought how women in the public eye elevated to office told me that conservative women are treated differently than liberal women.  The mainstream media will elevate liberal women yet mock and diminish conservative women.”

Fairness is not always prevalent.  What the senator wants is an even playing field.  “In my book, there is a chapter where I discuss how the liberals want everybody to spout their talking points even if someone is not in complete agreement.  Some of the liberal women’s organizations sent an open letter to all of the newsrooms.  It explained how people should talk to a female vice presidential candidate — basically, what could and could not be said and how to approach them.  I fired off a letter to all of the signatories and all of the newsrooms, stating that this treatment should apply to all women.  Of course, I got zero response on my letter.”

The book encourages women to believe in themselves, think for themselves, and strive to be the best they can to succeed.  “When I would speak to groups of women, they would always tell me during a Q&A how they considered themselves independent, neither a Democrat or Republican.  They want to make up their minds about an issue by doing research.  I would ask them to consider the Constitution, rule of law, justice, equality, equal treatment, and to have government get off people’s backs.  I emphasized how I want to make decisions on education and health care for my children, not the government.  As I say in my book, no one should think that an American woman is too weak and stupid to handle their own life.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

5 Things to Know About Amy Coney Barrett By Tyler O’Neil

Posted By on September 25th, 2020

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/25/5-things-to-know-about-amy-coney-barrett-n966406

Barrett has an impressive resume and an inspiring story. She has articulated a powerful defense of originalism, the method of interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.

1. Barrett’s background

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School first in her class. She has taught there for decades — and continues to teach there while serving as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. After graduation, she clerked at the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia. As Princeton professor Robert P. George noted, even fellow clerks who disagreed with Barrett admired her intellect. Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman described her as “a brilliant lawyer.”

As a Notre Dame graduate and professor, Barrett would break the Supreme Court law degree duopoly. All eight current justices hold degrees from one of two — and only two — law schools, Harvard and Yale.

Barrett and her husband have seven children, ranging in age from 5 to 16. They adopted two of them from Haiti. One of her sons also has “special needs.” As George wrote, “As someone who excelled as a legal scholar and reached the pinnacle of her profession as a Supreme Court Justice, Barrett would be an example to women hoping to combine a flourishing family life with a professional vocation.”

While Barrett has only served on the 7th Circuit for three years, that represents more experience than Barack Obama’s appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, who had never served as a judge prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Is Amy Coney Barrett an Originalist?

ISRAEL, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The ‘Peace Processoriat’ Was Wrong for Many Reasons-Shoshana Bryen

Posted By on September 25th, 2020

https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/insight/

First, “land for peace” was never viable. The Palestinian goal was presumed to be “land” and Israel’s was “peace.” But “peace” is not a negotiable property.

When a key member of the professional Middle East peace processoriat acknowledges that his community might have, in fact, been wrong, it is worthwhile to read what he has to say. But in his article “Arab-Israeli progress seemed impossible. That’s because of old assumptions,” Aaron David Miller misses the mark.

In his view, “For decades, a core assumption of many, if not most American foreign policy thinkers has been that the Israel-Palestinian conflict was a veritable powder keg that could blow at any time, creating war and instability in the Arab world.” Therefore, Palestinians first; Arab states after. He explains how the current administration simply bypassed the Palestinians and, therefore, “This doesn’t mean the Arab-Israeli conflict is over or that Israel has untethered itself from a dispute with Palestinians that could profoundly shape its character, demography and security—the Israeli and Palestinian futures are inextricably linked.”

Perhaps. The Palestinians certainly should have a role in their own future when they are ready, but it isn’t wrong of the other regional players to move without them. The problems, though, are more (and bigger) than the order of events.

First, “land for peace” was never viable. The Palestinian goal was presumed to be “land” and Israel’s was “peace.” But “peace” is not a negotiable property; a historian called it, “The condition imposed by the winner on the loser of the last war.” The “peace” of Versailles contained the seeds of World War II; the “peace” of 1945 contained the seeds of a democratic Germany and Japan but consigned millions to almost a half-century of Soviet-dominated communism. Peace emerges, if at all, only after the resolution of competing claims, whether through negotiation or war. World War II ended when the allies were in Berlin and Hitler was dead in the bunker. The Cold War ended when Soviet satellites were freed from Moscow’s grip and communism died.

CHARLOTTE'S NEWS WEB, EDUCATION, HISTORY Comments turned off

The myth of the ‘stolen country’ – What should the Europeans have done with the New World? Jeff Funn-Paul

Posted By on September 25th, 2020

https://spectator.us/myth-stolen-country-america-new-world/

Last month, in the middle of the COVID panic, a group of freshmen at the University of Connecticut were welcomed to their campus via a series of online ‘events’. At one event, students were directed to download an app for their phones. The app allowed students to input their home address, and it would piously inform them from which group of Native Americans their home had been ‘stolen’.

​We all know the interpretation of history on which this app is based. The United States was founded by a monumental act of genocide, accompanied by larceny on the grandest scale. Animated by racism and a sense of civilizational superiority, Columbus and his ilk sailed to the New World. They exterminated whomever they could, enslaved the rest, and intentionally spread smallpox in hopes of solving the ‘native question’. Soon afterwards, they began importing slave labor from Africa. They then built the world’s richest country out of a combination of stolen land, wanton environmental destruction and African slave labor. To crown it all, they have the audacity to call themselves a great country and pretend to moral superiority.

​This ‘stolen country’ paradigm has spread like wildfire throughout the British diaspora in recent years. The BBC recently ran a piece on the 400th anniversary of the Plymouth landings, whose author took obvious delight in portraying the Pilgrim Fathers as native-mutilating slave drivers. In Canada, in the greater Toronto school district, students are read a statement of apology, acknowledging European guilt for the appropriation of First Nations lands, before the national anthem is played over the PA system every morning.

​As a professional historian, I am keenly aware of the need to challenge smug, feel-good interpretations of history. I understand that nationalism and civilizational pride carry obvious dangers which were made manifest by the world wars of the 20th century. And I understand that these things can serve as subtle tools not only of racism but of exploitation of many stripes, and as justification for a status quo which gets in the way of meritocracy and fairness.