September 25, 2018
by Robert Stacy McCain, American Spectator Sept. 19, 2018
It is up to ‘We the People’ to judge the Kavanaugh case.
Where were you in the spring of 1982? Can you verify your whereabouts and produce evidence to establish that you weren’t molesting prep-school girls in suburban Maryland? Christine Blasey Ford insists she’s a victim and, while the main suspect is Brett Kavanaugh, perhaps no man can be entirely sure he won’t be summoned before the Senate Judiciary Committee in some future investigation.
Feminist “rape culture” discourse, which has sowed a climate of sexual paranoia on university campuses in recent years, has escaped its native habitat and is now wreaking havoc in our politics, to say nothing of its damaging effect on our culture. Do I want to discuss what allegedly happened at a party in Montgomery County, Maryland, on an unspecified night in 1982? Do you want to read such a discussion? Do any of us want to watch such a claim litigated on national TV with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser testifying in front of a Senate panel, with cable-news pundits endlessly rehashing every angle of the sordid saga day after day?
If you’re raped, call that cops. This is what sensible people have been saying for years about the situation that has emerged on American college campuses, where claims of sexual assault have been removed from the criminal justice system and handed over to administrative panels. Universities conduct secretive hearings where students accused of sexual misconduct are systematically deprived of the due-process protections that would be their constitutional right, had their accusers simply called 911 to report these alleged crimes. Centuries of Anglo-American common-law precedent have been discarded in favor of star-chamber tribunals operating under the putative authority of federal Title X legislation.
It is perhaps not a coincidence that Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser is a university professor. The former prep-school girl Christine Blasey went on to obtain two master’s degrees and a Ph.D. in psychology, marry an engineer named Russell Ford, and thus become Professor Ford of California’s Palo Alto University. Having spent her entire adult life working in academia, Professor Ford is eminently qualified as a representative of the mentality that currently prevails on our nation’s university campuses, where male students are presumed guilty of rape as soon as any female student accuses them.
By Debra Heine PJMedia September 14, 2018
In the wake of newly released text messages between fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova said he believes "the walls are closing in" on Obama-era FBI and Department of Justice Department officials.
Damning new texts obtained by Fox News this week show former FBI lovebirds Strzok and Page talking about government employees "leaking like mad" and media outlets competing for scoops in the run-up to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
"The walls are closing in, but they're not closing in on the president. They're closing in on the FBI and the Department of Justice under President Obama," diGenova said on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night.
He explained that the new Strzok-Page texts exposed a strategy to "illegally and criminally" release Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant information, including releasing the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in the surveillance abuse.
"By mentioning Carter Page, they have now created massive civil liability for everybody involved in revealing Carter Page's name," diGenova declared. He cited the names of former FBI counterintelligence director Bill Priestap, former FBI director James Comey, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI general counsel James Baker as people who are particularly vulnerable to civil liability. READ it HERE
The Blanket of Silence Andrew B. Wilson, American Spectator September 14, 2018
How intellectuals and the news media made light of a man-made socialist Catastrophe.
“All I know,” the British socialist Beatrice Webb confided in her diary in 1932 as she and her husband Sidney were writing a laudatory two-volume history of the Soviet Union, “is that I wish Russian communism to succeed.” The playwright George Bernard Shaw — a close friend of the Webbs, a fellow socialist, and a great admirer of the communist dictator Josef Stalin — claimed after a nine-day visit to Russia, “There was not, and could not be, a food shortage in the USSR.” Walter Duranty, the New York Times Moscow bureau chief from 1922 to 1936, took that falsehood and raised it to a still more preposterous height, assuring American readers that Soviet granaries “were overflowing with grain” and that the cows were “plump and contented.”
Unemployment in the United States reached a peak of 25 percent in the United States in 1933. As terrible as that was, there was human suffering on a far greater scale at this same time inside the Soviet Union: Famine wiped out scores of villages and caused millions of people to starve to death. This was a purely man-made famine — caused by the forced collectivization of agriculture, or the stamping out of an independent peasantry allowed to sell any part of their product in an open market.
Instead of merely extorting peasants to turn over a large portion of their harvests to the state at low prices, Stalin decided to wage class war against the kulaks in the Ukraine and North Caucasus — the more prosperous peasants… or any peasant who opposed the abolition of private farms and the herding together of all farmers into giant “grain factories.” Begun as a part of the Five-Year Plan of 1928, the inevitable result of this massive exercise in “social engineering” was chaos, crop failures, and the raging 1932-1933 famine. Read it HERE
We have enough issues to deal with in the world, so it’s unfortunate to have to take time to write this, but I feel compelled to address the claims in the anonymous “resistance” op-ed published this week in the New York Times. The author might think he or she is doing a service to the country. I strongly disagree. What this “senior official in the Trump administration” has done, and is apparently intent on continuing to do, is a serious disservice — not just to the president but to the country.
I, too, am a senior Trump administration official. I proudly serve in this administration, and I enthusiastically support most of its decisions and the direction it is taking the country. But I don’t agree with the president on everything. When there is disagreement, there is a right way and a wrong way to address it. I pick up the phone and call him or meet with him in person.
Like my colleagues in the Cabinet and on the National Security Council, I have very open access to the president. He does not shut out his advisers, and he does not demand that everyone agree with him. I can talk to him most any time, and I frequently do. If I disagree with something and believe it is important enough to raise with the president, I do it. And he listens. Sometimes he changes course, sometimes he doesn’t. That’s the way the system should work. And the American people should be comfortable knowing that’s the way the system does work in this administration. READ it HERE
by Benny Johnson, The Daily Caller
Obama accused the GOP of meddling in conspiracy theories while giving a much-anticipated political speech at the University of Illinois Friday.
Obama scoffed at some of the GOP’s agenda items in his speech, critiquing the Republican-control Congresses.
“This Congress has championed the unwinding of campaign finance laws to give billionaires outside influence over our politics, systematically attacked voting rights to make it harder for young people and minorities and the poor to vote, handed out tax cuts without regard to deficits, slashed the safety net wherever it could, cast dozens of votes to take away health insurance from order Americans…” Obama started.
The former president then accused the GOP of “embracing wild conspiracy theories — like those surrounding Benghazi. Or my birth certificate.”
The line caused laughter in the audience. But one veteran and Benghazi survivor was not laughing.
Kris Paronto was in Benghazi when Islamic extremists overran a U.S. embassy and consulate, killing four Americans. Paronto, a former U.S. Army Ranger, was working as a CIA security contractor at the time.
Paronto called Obama a “cowardly ass” and “scum” for referencing Benghazi in the speech.
“Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama ?!” Paronto tweeted, “How bout we do this, let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies & shoot rpg’s & Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for U.S. support that you never sent.” READ the REST
American Spectator, August 16, 2018, 12:05 am
For certain he’s saved us from Obamaism and its socialist designs.
With the appearance of Death of a Nation, the must-see film by Dinesh D’Souza, a debate has begun as to the role Donald Trump plays in American history. D’Souza argues persuasively that Trump has saved America from socialism while the left and Never-Trumpers insist he has set America back. However, the events of the last few years seem strongly to support D’Souza’s view.
Americans need to understand that the shocking refusal by a major political party to accept the results of the last election and the onslaught of verbal, legal, and physical assaults the Democrats have engendered, are not specific to Donald Trump. In other words, it is now clear plans were made by Obama to exploit federal power during his presidency to give the Democrats control of our nation — perpetually. It really didn’t matter if Trump was the GOP nominee or not. In other words, the chaos we are witnessing today would not have been much different had, for example, Ted Cruz won the presidency.
Sure, the issues and the phony narratives would be different but the intensity of the attacks would be the same and the illegal politicizing of Federal agencies would probably still have occurred. There is little doubt the Dems would have created phony narratives customized for whoever the nominee was, similar to how they customized the Russian collusion hoax for Trump. This is what the establishment Republicans and the Never-Trumpers don’t understand. Long before Trump’s candidacy, total war was declared on the GOP when the Obama administration strategically created the conditions to make its progressive revolution a permanent one. Or so they thought. READ the REST HERE
By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Thursday, August 2, 2018
Cheryl Chumley is online opinion editor for The Washington Times, the author of “The Devil in DC: Winning Back the Country From the Beast in Washington” and of "Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming Our Reality," and a 2008-2009 Robert Novak journalism fellow with The Fund for American Studies.
If Donald Trump wants to win the presidency again, his 2020 campaign slogan ought to be “Vote Trump — I’m Not a Socialist.”
That’s only partially tongue-in-cheek. Trump did say at his recent rally in Tampa that he was poised to unveil “Keep America Great” for his re-election effort. But “I’m Not a Socialist” is just as good.
This socialism-in-America thing is getting out of control — and what’s emerging as a contributing factor is that even the media pundits who detest socialism aren’t hitting the nail on the head on why socialism, why all socialism’s johnny-come-lately candidates in the Democratic Party, should take a hike.
It’s not just the fact socialism fails — though it does fail, and spectacularly so.
It’s not just the abundance of figures that point to all of socialism’s failures — the current state of oil-rich Venezuela, the dismal economy of Cuba, the suffering over-taxed class of France during the Francois Hollande years.
It’s not just that every socialist policy and platform put forth by the likes of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Kaniela Ing and the rest — the rest of the near-40 democratic socialist-tied candidates seeking various political seats READ the REST
By Angelo Codevilla| July 17th, 2018
The high professional quality of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s performance at their Monday press conference in Helsinki contrasts sharply with the obloquy by which the bipartisan U.S. ruling class showcases its willful incompetence.
Though I voted for Trump, I’ve never been a fan of his and I am not one now. But, having taught diplomacy for many years, I would choose the Trump-Putin press conference as an exemplar of how these things should be done. Both spoke with the frankness and specificity of serious business. This performance rates an A+.
Both presidents started with the basic truth.
Putin: The Cold War is ancient history. Nobody in Russia (putting himself in this category) wants that kind of enmity again. It is best for Russia, for America, and for everybody else if the two find areas of agreement or forbearance.
Trump: Relations between the globe’s major nuclear powers have never been this bad—especially since some Americans are exacerbating existing international differences for domestic partisan gain. For the sake of peace and adjustment of differences where those exist and adjustment is possible, Trump is willing to pay a political cost to improve those relations (if, indeed further enraging his enemies is a cost rather than a benefit). READ it HERE