Historian Victor Hanson Davis provides his usual insight and understanding to the Mueller Affair.  Here is a long-ish excerpt with a link to the full analysis at the end.

Russian Collusion

The 13 Russian nationals whom Mueller symbolically indicted will not come to the U.S. to face trial, and they will certainly not be extradited, a fact known by Mueller.

Yet Christopher Steele, a British subject and de facto unregistered foreign agent, is imminently indictable and extraditable. He was paid through two firewalls (Fusion GPS and Perkins Coie) by Hillary Clinton to tap Russian sources to compile a smear dossier on her opponent, with the intent of warping the U.S. election — a classic example of foreign-agent interference in an American campaign. If we were to take away that one purchased document, then the FISA court warrants, the informants, and all the CIA, FBI, and DOJ machinations would likely have disappeared or never arisen.

Obama-administration officials Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked on the dossier) at Justice, James Comey at the FBI, and John Brennan at the CIA all in some manner colluded with Steele, either directly or indirectly, to monitor the Trump campaign and then to seed the dossier among government agencies and courts, both to ensure its leakage and to brand it with a stamp of official seriousness, warranting investigations and media sensationalism.

Speaking of FBI informants, quite a different one has testified that Putin’s Russia had sent millions of dollars to a U.S. lobbying firm, in hopes of persuading Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to use her influence with federal officials to close the so-called Rosatom Uranium One deal. At roughly the same time, Bill Clinton was given a lucrative half-million-dollar fee for speaking in Moscow, while millions of dollars from Uranium One investors had poured into the Clinton Foundation — which after Clinton’s 2016 defeat has seen its contributions precipitously decline.

In another related matter of Russian collusion, Barack Obama in a hot-mic exchange with then–Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, in March 2012, eight months before Obama’s reelection, asked Medvedev to give Putin the assurance that if Putin would give Obama “space” during his reelection campaign, then Obama in turn would have “more flexibility” on issues such as missile defense “after my election.” That quid pro quo was clarified six months later when an unusually quiet Putin darkly announced to the world that any deployment of U.S.-led NATO missile-defense systems would be targeted against Russia in a Romney administration — as compared with the actions in supposedly less bellicose Obama presidency. And after expressing no interest in interfering in an American election, Putin clearly made it evident that he preferred an Obama victory.

Most observers now laugh off this entire sordid incident. But in the present climate, if Donald Trump had been caught in a similar hot-mic exchange with a top Russian official, and had Putin later expressed the idea that he preferred a Trump presidency to a Democratic one, and had U.S.-led missile-defense efforts abruptly stalled in Eastern Europe, then Robert Mueller would be hot on Trump’s trail — given that such an overt quid pro quo, benefiting a candidate’s reelection campaign, is far more explicit than anything Mueller’s 18-month investigation has yet turned up. – One-Eyed-Jack Law, Victor Hanson Davis (via NRO)

Advertisements

Recently, a cable news personality made provocative claims about who the “real” terrorists are threatening this country.  So I decided to review the data.

In the last 20 years, over 3000 Americans have been killed on US soil by radical Islamists. The number killed by white “right-wing extremists” is less than 100. (The worst attack committed by a right-wing terrorist is the Oklahoma City bombing from the 90’s, when 168 people were killed.) It is true that the numbers killed by these groups are much closer during the Trump years, but that’s because there are far fewer terrorist attacks under Trump than Obama. 70 Americans were killed on US soil by radicalized Muslims between 2013 and 2016. That’s many more IN TOTAL than have been killed in the US by terrorists of any type since then.

Of course, any terrorist act committed by any criminal is to be condemned.  Terrorists and violent criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law regardless of their motivations, background or race.  (That’s how the law is supposed to work.)  And journalists should do their job and use facts when presenting news about terrorism, not just their feelings or political views.

If you would like to check my numbers, here are some good resources:  US Terrorist Attacks Fast Facts (CNN), Countering Violent Extremism (US GAO), Terrorism in the United States (Wikipedia)Note that none of these includes the recent Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting where 11 people were murdered.  Details here.

The lesson from the American Civil War and the French Revolution, the rise of Nazism in Germany or of Bolshevism in Russia, is not that clear majorities of partisans and countless news junkies are needed to foment extremism and tear apart a country.  Instead, it is that zealous and sometimes warring tiny minorities can escalate tensions, nullify opposition, and bully the silenced majority to sanction–or at least not object to–the violence by which they eventually make their illiberal agendas go mainstream. – Victor Hanson Davis, Historian

If we do not cherish and care for our freedoms – speech, assembly, religion and others – we will lose them.  If we do not respect and defend our protections – rule of law, enforcement of public safety, decorum and civility – we will lose them.  If we no longer value and support the individual within the tolerant protection of the group, we are all lost.  In short, we have a Republic if we can keep it.

 

unclesambank

The Trump administration has saved US taxpayers $1.3 Billion by eliminating unnecessary federal regulations.  Read the details here.

 

 

In 2013, Beijing launched the belt and road plan, a global development blueprint involving about 60 countries from Asia, Europe to Africa to stimulate economic growth with large-scale capital investment and infrastructure construction projects.

Two years later, China started printing 100-rupee notes for Nepal, Liu wrote in an article in China Finance, a bi-monthly journal run by China’s central bank in May.

Since then the company had “seized the opportunities brought by the initiative” and “successfully won contracts for currency production projects in a number of countries including Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Brazil and Poland,” he said.

But that could be just the tip of the iceberg. The actual number of countries that have or plan to outsource currency printing to China could be much bigger, according to one source in the corporation. Some governments have asked Beijing not to publicise the deal because they are worried such information could compromise national security or trigger “unnecessary debates at home”, the person said.

Read the full article here.