Wednesday, July 10, 2019

A Variety of Topics and Articles.







Elementary teacher from Socialist Country of Denmark

Funny that Bernie Sanders left out the rest of the story  when quoting Denmark as one of the countries that was successful with free health care, education etc.
Doesn't seem like it's even the tiniest bit true from what this gal says, and she "lives" there !!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.teaparty.org/huge-pilot-logs-reveal-almost-every-time-bill-clinton-flew-on-epsteins-lolita-express-underage-girls-were-on-the-plane-video-371933/

And:

We The People
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some worthwhile Op Eds for those who can still read and reason:

Ben Shapiro: Anger for Anger's Sake

Isaac Stanley-Becker: Woman who urged boyfriend to die now asking Supreme Court to call it free speech


Byron York: Dems' 2020 Challenge: Convince voters to overlook economy

Amber Phillips: Dems' latest effort to unseat Mitch McConnell is a long shot

Walter Williams: Our Free Speech Crisis
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Has Sulzberger lost his mind? (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ross Perot was a bit nuts and unorthodox .  Did he pave the way for Trump?

If so, who paved the way for AOC? 

Did I hear someone say Eva Peron and/or Mussolini?(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there a difference between N Korea and Iran? (See 3 below.)

And:

Lifted from The Heritage Foundation Newsletter. (See 3a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump is constantly attacked because he is an ideologue who ran pledging  to break up the establishment.  He is also constantly being attacked because he is being true to his campaign pledges. Those who hate him will not accept the fact he won. Consequently, everything Trump seeks to do is opposed because the establishment realize they are vulnerable.  Even those in his own party, who consider themselves establishment, have also been obstructionist.

Those who put Trump in office resent being called and treated as deplorable's and believe they have not benefited from the accomplishments of the established and thus, their loyalty to Trump.

The "old establishment" are on their way out but the issue is what will the "new establishment" seek to accomplish. Will the radical element of the Democrat Party determine the future direction of this nation? If they are we will not recognize our republic even if it exists. Correcting policies that have proven wrongheaded  and detrimental is not radical.

There are reasonable paths that can be taken if reasonable people are willing to run the risk.

I am posting one such policy. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It isn't premarital sex if you have no intention of getting married."

George Burns
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Netanyahu, Trump Policies Succeed in West Bank, New York Times Concedes

Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump have succeeded in calming violence in the West Bank, the New York Times concedes in a news article that I thought I’d never see.
Not because it isn’t true, but because I erroneously thought the New York Times would never be honest enough to acknowledge it.

Yet there it is in the July 9 Times, under the online headline “West Bank Grows Calmer as Pocketbook Issues Take Priority Over Protests.”

A Times reporter, Isabel Kershner, interviewed Palestinians who “attribute the relative calm that now prevails to a combination of factors, including war weariness and the Israeli military’s harsh response, which resulted in too many killed, wounded or imprisoned and too few achievements.” Also, “they have largely given up on an American role in solving the conflict, seeing the Trump administration as hopelessly biased in favor of Israel.”

In addition, “The Israeli agency for Palestinian civilian affairs has issued 86,000 permits for West Bank laborers to work in Israel, the highest number ever.”

The Times does let its usual bias shine through at points in the article. The word “Netanyahu” does not appear, depriving the Israeli prime minister, who is running for reelection, of the credit he deserves for the success of his policies. And the article could have been improved by deleting some of the tendentious adjectives and adverbs — “harsh,” and “too” in the sentence quoted above.

Yet, taken as a whole, the brief, inside-the-paper dispatch is remarkable because it undercuts just about everything the Times and the “experts” on which it relies have been telling its readers for years about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The Times and its left-leaning experts have been telling readers that calm would come “only” from — well, here is a 2002 Times editorial, headlined “The Limits of Force,” that sums up the newspaper’s longtime position pretty accurately: “Our reservations are not over the impulse to respond militarily but over the long-range effectiveness of policies that rely heavily on the use of force. It is a lot to ask, but Israel must look beyond its current fury to find a political solution to this conflict. It must realize that no matter how many tanks it sends to the West Bank, only a commitment to withdraw from occupied lands and permit the building of a Palestinian state, in return for normal relations with its Arab neighbors, offers a way out.”

Got that? In 2002 the Times was fretting about “the long-range effectiveness of policies that rely heavily on the use of force,” yet here we are 17 years later in 2019 and the newspaper’s reporter in the West Bank finds Palestinians attributing “the relative calm that now prevails to a combination of factors, including … the Israeli military’s harsh response.”

That West Bank Palestinians reacted to President Trump’s strong support for Israel not with violence but with submission is also at odds with theTimes editorial stance. When Trump picked David Friedman as the American ambassador to Israel, the newspaper said he would be “likely to provoke conflict in Israel and the occupied territories.” Moving the American embassy to Jerusalem “would provoke violence,” the Times said then.

Today’s Times article suggests that rather than inspiring violent protests, a resolutely pro-Israel administration in Washington inspires Palestinian Arab quietude.

The work-permits fact is also at odds with the Times portrayal of Trump-Netanyahu policies toward the Palestinians. A June 8 Times news articledepicted Ambassador Friedman as defending what the Times described as “an all-stick, no-carrot approach to the Palestinians.” An April 4 Timesnews article spoke of “the increasingly hard-right Israeli government led by Mr. Netanyahu.” So “hard-right,” apparently, that it is issuing record-high numbers of work permits to West Bank Palestinians.

It’s not clear that the West Bank “calm” will last forever. The current situation is not without downsides for both the Palestinians and Israelis, though proposed alternatives also have risks. But for now, it’s better than the violence of the recent past, is what the Times article suggests.
Read the Times for long enough and eventually it’s possible to come across something that is pleasantly surprising. It’s rare, but when it does happen, we might as well take a moment to appreciate it.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. More of his media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Ross Perot
Editorial of The New York Sun
The death of Ross Perot, at a time when Americans are thinking about political character, takes from us one of its most remarkable exemplars. He is best known for his two campaigns for the presidency. He failed, but historians may yet conclude that he created the populist template that would be used by, in Donald Trump, another billionaire without political experience to gain the White House.

We ourselves had only a glancing acquaintance with Perot. It was formed in the early 1980s, when we were an editor at the Wall Street Journal and visiting Dallas. It was our practice when going to a city for the first time to invite someone newsworthy to dinner. So we’d sent a note to Perot, asking him if he might join a small group from the Journal and talk about “On Wings of Eagles.”

That was Ken Follet’s non-fiction account of the secret mission Perot had organized to rescue from an Iranian prison two of his employes who, in late 1978, had been arrested during the revolutionary turmoil of Iran. It’s an incredible story. Perot hired one of America’s most famous soldiers, Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons, to lead the team. Perot himself had flown to Tehran to oversee the operation.

The dinner was an off-the-record evening, but it can be said that Perot gave us a glimpse of what a peppery, engaging, and brilliant figure he was. It caused us later to refrain from ridiculing, or merely underestimating, his presidential campaign — even if, both in 1992 and 1996, we voted for Bill Clinton, in the hope that he would lead the Democrats to the center.

Two things stand out, at least for us, from those campaigns. One is Perot’s choice of his running mate. Vice Admiral James Stockdale may have been the greatest mortal ever to stand for vice president of America. He had won his Medal of Honor for repeated acts of valor in defying his captors during his long travail as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. Yet the press belittled his choice as Perot’s running mate.

Stockdale was met with laughter when at the vice presidential debate he opened by asking, “Who am I? Why am I here?” We later predicted that generations hence, when the individuals who sneered at those words are forgotten in the dust of history, Americans will know exactly who James Stockdale was and exactly why he was here. It says something about Perot that he sought Stockdale for his foxhole.

A second thing that stands out about Perot is that even though he lost, his campaigns tapped the sentiments that fueled the populist challenge to both the Democrats and the Republicans. He “foreshadowed,” as the Washington Post puts it, “the rise of the tea party.” And, we’d add, Perot identified early, and tapped, issues that eventually helped propel President Trump to the White House.

Perot was an early critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, warning of a “giant sucking sound going south,” as jobs and factories moved to Mexico. He avoided the kind of language about some Mexicans to which Mr. Trump resorted. As an independent, Perot did win in 1992 an average of 20% of the vote in the states that, in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, would become famous as the Blue Wall.

We found ourselves appreciating Perot’s patriotism. He once tried to get into Communist North Vietnam two cargo jets filled with food, medicine, and gifts for our GIs, held prisoner there. He kept a copy of “The Spirit of ‘76” behind his desk. It may be that his biggest mistake was to run as an independent, rather than as a Republican. In any event, he seems at his death a man before his time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) In North Korea, Kim Jn Un wants Nuclear weapons for only one reason, to make sure that he stays in power, he doesn't want to use them because he knows if he does, it will lead to his destruction.

Iran on the other hand, is a religious Theocracy run by religious fanatics.   98% of the population are Shiite Muslim.  They are awaiting the return of the 12th Imam, who first appeared in 869, he has never died, he is just in hiding.  In order for him to return and bring peace and tranquility to the world, there must first be chaos and war and massive destruction, which he will stop upon his return.  Read the attached and draw your own conclusion.  

That's why Iran must never get the Bomb.



3a) How ready is our military? 
The Senate recently passed its defense budget bill. Next, the House must reconcile any differences it has with the bill before it moves forward. “Lawmakers must find a way to keep good items in this bill—and eliminate the bad—so the Pentagon can continue restoring the military our nation needs,” writes Tom Spoher, director of Heritage’s Center for National Defense. So what is the state of our nation's military and how much do we need? In a new video, Dakota Wood, a senior research fellow in Heritage’s Center for National Defense, explains the readiness of our military and why we are at risk. Watch the new video.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) A Modest Immigration Proposal
College campuses have lots of empty housing during the summer. Proudly progressive institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford should welcome illegal immigrants.


College campuses have lots of empty housing during the summer. Proudly progressive institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford should welcome illegal immigrants.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) believes that American detention centers that house illegal aliens — over 1 million illegal arrivals during the last six months alone — are similar to “concentration camps.” A storm of criticism met her historically fallacious comparisons. Ocasio-Cortez doubled down on her Hitlerian reference by pedantically claiming that she was referencing “concentration” rather than “death” camps, and thus despite sloganeering “Never Again,” with a wink and nod, she was supposedly not suggesting that Auschwitz was quite comparable to America’s border facilities.

She then doubled down again by visiting the border. On the basis of no evidence, she was soon claiming that detained illegal aliens were drinking out of toilets, as well as alleging that immigration officers met her social-welfare activism with rudeness and sexual innuendo.

Where to start with her abject historical ignorance?

One, America’s detention centers bear no resemblance to concentration camps of the past. Illegal aliens know that there is some chance that, after they enter the U.S. illegally, they may be apprehended and detained. If they really believed the conditions of their detention resembled “concentration camps,” which historically are scenes of mass death, they would never have come.

Millions of Russians by summer 1942 were not voluntarily flooding across German lines on the expectation that they’d survive, much less thrive, in Nazi “concentration camps.” The German public did not pressure the Nazi hierarchy to allow lawyers and counselors into Soviet POW camps. Boer children did not migrate to British territory on the rationale that their detention would be without hazard.

Certainly, undocumented immigrants — receiving, for example, “free” transgendered counseling and hormonal treatment while in American custody — do not resemble the inmates of “concentration camps.”

American immigration authorities are trying to facilitate brief detentions and expedite both deportations and refugee hearings to curb the number of detainees. In exact opposite fashion, the wardens of concentration camps historically have wanted to lock up as many people as possible — not release them.

Release from concentration camps was often facilitated only through death by starvation or disease. If Ocasio-Cortez can cite a historical example of concentration-camp inmates having access to legal counsel, modern medicine, and communications, as well as nutritious food and shelter, she might at least offer some parallels rather than her characteristic half-educated tweets.

If for historical comparison she wishes to return to the wrong-headed wartime detention of Japanese-Americans and Japanese citizens residing in the United States, then she should at least focus her ire on the architects of that stupid policy: the yellow journalism and hysteria of the liberal McClatchy papers of California, the careerism of then California attorney general Earl Warren, and the patronizing racism of Franklin Roosevelt — in other words the progressive trifecta that ensured the detentions. (And while we are on the topic of progressive Supreme Court justices, AOC might wish to probe Justice Ruth Ginsburg about her past commentary on the oppressed and abortion — e.g., “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”)

Two, the distinction between concentration and death camps is one without a difference, or at least a distinction of intent rather than of actuality. The term “concentration camp” grew out of British detention centers during the Boer War, in which over 30,000 Boer and African prisoners died under British control, many of them children, mostly due to overcrowding, disease, and malnutrition.

True, the infamous Nazis camp Dachau was not literally by design a “death” camp in the way that the later and far more lethal Treblinka and Auschwitz were, when trainloads of arrivals were unloaded and marched into their gas showers. 

 Nonetheless it needed several crematoria to dispose of more than 30,000 inmates who perished at Dachau while under captivity. When Mexico green-lights and herds tens of thousands of migrants, without sufficient food, shelter, or medical care, northward across its territory to the U.S. border, Mexico knows, and apparently is content, that there is going to be chaos when they illegally cross into the United States. That candidate stuntmen such as Julian Castro and Corey Booker accompany illegal border crossers suggests that they too assume that their flock will be better off in the U.S. than in their countries of birth. Otherwise, would Booker and Castro be leading the innocent into camps of death?

Ocasio-Cortez apparently has no clue that during World War II far more people died in concentration camps — some 15 million Russian prisoners of war and civilians under Nazi occupation on the Eastern Front, along with millions in China confined to Japanese concentration camps — than in the death camps designed from the outset to facilitate the Holocaust. Death was industrialized at Auschwitz; yet in the Soviet Gulag, or on the German Eastern Front, or in Manchuria, it was foreordained — a result of starvation and disease once millions were put behind barbed wire.

Three, if Ocasio-Cortez is worried about maltreatment, illness, and hunger of the poor, she would find a half-million in dire need on the streets of America’s major cities, almost all of which are currently controlled by progressive mayors and city councils, whose zoning and gentrification and green regulatory polices ensure an absence of low-cost housing.

To walk in the downtown areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, or San Jose is to witness many of California’s 130,000 homeless living on the sidewalks and streets among fifth, refuse, feces, needles, lice, fleas, and rats — history’s traditional ingredients for plague and death, with our era’s addition of drug paraphernalia. Juxtaposed to these medieval scenes are soap-box lectures about caring, intoned by progressive elites such as Mark Zuckerberg, Gavin Newsome, and Nancy Pelosi, who live in splendor in Bay Area keeps, their private neighborhood security details ensuring that their constituent peasantry keep their trash, illnesses, and defecation lower down the hill and outside the walls.

Indeed, California recently has experienced outbreaks of premodern diseases such as typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, and infectious hepatitis. Doctors warn that plague and cholera might be next. When the American homeless sleep, eat, and inject drugs where they defecate and urinate, and their political overseers either allow or enable such miseries, they collectively refute centuries of public-health progress and medical research, and are endangering not just the well-being of the homeless but also the lives of millions in cities who live, work, and walk among such piles of flotsam and jetsam. Why isn’t AOC berating Mayor Bill de Blasio or Governor Andrew Cuomo for man’s inhumanity to man on the sidewalks of greater New York?

Four, if Ocasio-Cortez is looking at ways to ease the burden of overcrowded and overtaxed federal detention centers, I have a number of suggestions that she might pursue.

She could begin by directing her animus at Central American governments, the cumulative recipients of billions of U.S. aid dollars. For selfish reasons, they export their poor to America, both to save money by reducing welfare costs and to earn remittances from their new helots who arrive in the U.S.

Or AOC might rebuke fellow Democratic-party grandees who cynically count on illegal immigration to enhance their own efforts to alter demography and augment their own electoral power — a rank cynicism whose natural dividend is the present overcrowding at the border. If AOC believes she sees inhumanity to be deplored in detention centers, her Democratic strategists see instead would-be voters who are soon to be harvested.

Or she could fault Mexico, which counts on remittances as its No. 1 source of foreign exchange, regardless of the condition of its own expatriate poor who must scrimp to send back $30 billion to relatives who are largely ignored by the loud moralists in Mexico City. What sort of government views its own population as expendable human exports, to be driven out from home, to cross its neighbor’s border illegally, then to work at entry-level wages and remit money to the needy that Mexico City ignores?

Five, perhaps there is a different, out-of-the-box workable solution. We are currently at the beginning of the summer vacation season, when America’s 4,000 colleges and universities have plenty of empty dorm space and underutilized facilities.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford, to take just a few examples, might each volunteer to house and feed 1,000 detainees each. Think of the advantages that would accrue to everyone involved in the present tragedy. Immigrants would find safe and sanitary 90-day quarters, almost all of them in university towns that are proud sanctuary cities.

Many universities have top-ranked medical schools. Hundreds of resident interns might offer their medical expertise pro bono, especially about hard-to-treat resistant tuberculosis or bouts of little-seen whooping cough. Yale and Harvard law schools are famous for their legal expertise and could offer immigrants top-flight counsel about ensuring refugee status. Schools would have incentives to expedite repatriation before the September commencement of classes.

Our universities are, of course, loci of progressive caring and are praised for their sharp opposition to what they think are archaic ideas of sovereignty, border security, and legal-only immigration. And yet so often our social-justice warriors are distant from the concrete recipients of their own often loud advocacy. What better pathway for cultural progress than to have university communities interact with recent immigrant arrivals through housing, socializing, and schooling immigrants? A kid from Atherton, Cambridge, or Chevy Chase might learn a lot by living among arrivals from Oaxaca and vice versa.


At least such first-hand association would ground urban progressives’ abstract advocacy in real-life caring. Immigrants would at last be able to socialize with and appreciate their progressive advocates.

In short, the summer-time use of underutilized university campuses — many of the smaller ones are financially strapped and in dire need of revenue — as contracting agencies with the federal government is an ideal solution to those who are worried about the supposed callous treatment in overcrowded and underfunded federal immigration centers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)