Swedish Sexual Assault Stats Since 2015

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Nyheter Idag

The below article from Nyheter Idag shows statistics in reported sexual assault cases in Sweden since 2015. It shows a dramatic increase. Translation by Fousesquawk.


Reported cases of sexual molestation against women and girls has increased sharply since 2015

Sweden: On Thursday, the Crime Prevention Council's preliminary statistics for reported crime during 2019 were released. The statistics show that the number of sexual molestations against women and girls has increased sharply since 2015. The number of reported sexual molestations in the group of girls 15-17 has increased by 51%.

The number of reported rapes increased during 2019 by 6%  up to 8,350 reported crimes compared to the previous year. Something that Nyheter Idag earlier reported on.

The total number of reported cases of sexual molestation remained at the same level as the previous year-9,730. However, among women 18 or older, an increase of 5% was reported-to 5,294 reports.

Now Nyheter Idag has reviewed the number of reports of sexual molestation against women since 2015, five years back in time.

- Women age 18 or older: From 4,173 to 5,294. An increase of 27%.
-Girls 15-17. From 718 to 1,084. An increase of 51%.
-Girls up to 15 years of age: From 2,072 to 2,304. An increase of 11%. 2014, the first year with complete statistics from BRA, however, is extremely high-3,000.

In total, the number of reported cases of sexual molestation has more than doubled in 20 years. From 4,963 total reported cases of sexual molestation in 1999 to 10,310 cases in 2019- an increase of 108%. 

There are different theories as to why the number of reports has increased. Criminologist Nina Rung has earlier said that she believes that the tendency to make a report has increased.

After a large number of cases of sexual molestation against especially young girls were reported, the police compiled a report in 2016 in which, among other things, described that there were found cases of how groups of men surrounded a girl (who was) alone then abused them.

In at least ten cases, a lone girl was surrounded by several men (from 5-6 to a larger number) who are sometimes estimated to be 14-16 years of age. On these occasions, some have held (the girl) while others have touched her breast and body, and in one case, some have photographed the abuse.
In some cases, the perpetrators have unbuttoned the girl's pants and attempted- in certain cases-also succeeded in pulling them down before  rescue arrived. Similarly, it has occurred that several girls in a peer group have been exposed at the same time by a large gang. A few suspected offenders have been identified.
Those identified are citizens of Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia. All of the investigations in Stockholm  and Kalmar from 2014-2015 have been closed due to the difficulty in identification or  lack of evidence.

I don't know what that crimininologist is  thinking unless she made other statements not included in the article. The cause is obvious. 2015 is the year that, thanks largely to the Syrian civil war, the number of refugees and asylum-seekers in Europe exploded. That is not to say that Syrians are  the only problem as shown by the fact that there are so many migrants from Afghanistan and Somalia. As mentioned in the article, they make up a large part of the cases, at least in Sweden.

Never Again Is Now

Gary Fouse

Never Again Is Now Poster

In December 2018, I was contacted by Evelyn Markus, a Jewish Dutch emigree and daughter of Holocaust survivors. She was about to release her documentary entitled, "Never Again Is Now", about anti-Semitism. The film recounts the story of her family during the German occupation of the Netherlands and brings us up to date with the worldwide problem as it exists today including in the US.

Ms Markus had seen the video of the disruption of a pro-Israel event at UC Irvine by Students for Justice in Palestine in May 2017, which I had videotaped since I was present.  She was asking for my permission to use clips of that disruption in her film, which I readily agreed to.  I just saw the film in its entirety this week, and I urge all my readers to watch it. It features interviews with people like Ben Shapiro, Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Muslim reformers Shireen Qudosi and Dr Qanta Ahmed. Unlike many depictions of today's anti-Semitism, the film does not limit the finger of blame to just right wing, white anti-Semites, but also points out the problem of anti-Semitism within Islam including among immigrant communities in Europe and anti-Israel forces on American college campuses.

This film is available on Prime Video.

UC Beserkeley Is Still Beserkely-and Anti-Jewish

Gary Fouse

Checking out the latest news from UC Berkeley, we note that nothing has changed when it comes to anti-Israel and anti-Jewish agitation. In the first article running this week in the campus fishwrap, Daily Californian, we learn that the pro-Palestinian mob, specifically, the oddly named Jewish Voice for Peace, is upset over President Trump's executive order on campus anti-Semitism. I added a comment in the reader thread to the effect that JVP is a bunch of misfits who have linked up with those who would wipe Israel off the map and remove all Jews from the Holy Land if they could.


Next we have an op-ed by the president of the Cal Berkeley Democrats against hate speech. What the writer means is that conservative speakers should be banned from campus- as well as those menacing campus cops (who, in reality, just stand around while students disrupt conservative speaking events).


And from Algemeiner, we learn about a pro-Palestinian display honoring Palestinian murderers like Rasmea Odeh. And Bears for Palestine have the temerity to complain about the "constant fear" they feel on campus.


You talk about a place where the inmates run the institution.

The Europeans Keep Rejecting Liberty

by Robert Curry: Modern continental Europe keeps trying to solve its political problem — and then to impose its solution on everyone within reach. Recognizing this historical process can help us understand European anti-Americanism, strongest perhaps in Germany. America created the Europeans' political predicament, and we keep preventing them from adopting the solutions they come up with.

America created the Europeans' political problem by the magnificent example of the American Revolution and the astonishing, world-changing success of America. In an interesting version of the story of the emperor's new clothes, rule by hereditary monarchs, hereditary aristocracies, and established churches was suddenly revealed to be absurd and indefensible.

The only problem was that continental Europe was for the most part incapable of self-rule. The attempts, for example, by Germany, Italy, and France to achieve reasonably stable regimes of rule by their own people would be comical but for the terrible human consequences of their repeated failures.

With the exception of the Netherlands and a few other European countries that, like Britain, have achieved rule by their own people, the modern history of continental Europe is the story of people trying various experiments in an ongoing effort to relieve themselves of the burden of self-rule.

For a while, it seemed certain that fascism was going to be the European solution. The Germans and the Italians took the lead, but there were at the same time homegrown fascist movements throughout Europe, even in Britain. The French earned from Homer Simpson the sobriquet "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" because of their feeble resistance to the Nazi invaders and their swift adoption of a policy of collaboration with their Nazi rulers. If it weren't for America's military intervention, the Nazis would likely have defeated Britain, and fascist Europe would have reached from Ireland's western shore to Moscow and beyond.

The crushing military defeat of fascist Germany and fascist Japan took the fascist solution off the table. What were the Europeans to do? Next up: communism.

WWII resulted in only the western portion of Europe not being swallowed up by the Soviets. Once again, as with fascism, there were homegrown communist movements and sympathizers everywhere in Europe outside the Soviet-ruled zone. Communist Europe would likely have had that same western border in Ireland considered above — except once again for the United States. America kept a military presence in Europe after the war, preventing the Soviets from snapping up what remained of Europe not already under their control.

The Americans did not simply prevent a Soviet takeover of Europe. The American example destroyed communism's claim to legitimacy as surely as America's example had destroyed the European monarchs' claim to rule. The collapse of the Soviet Union robbed the Europeans of a communist future.

The Americans had done it to them again.

What now is next to be tried? Islam. Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam and no enemy of Western civilization, predicted an Islamic Europe some time ago, and an Islamic Europe is now coming on much faster than when he made that prediction. Muhammad is the most common name given to baby boys in cities throughout Europe, even in Britain.

Once again, as in WWI and WWII, the Germans are taking the lead. Because Germany dominates the European Union, the open border policy imposed on Europe by Angela Merkel is responsible for a massive Muslim invasion of Europe — and this time the invaders don't need to brush past feeble military resistance or even use weapons. The invaders only need to show up and apply for welfare, leaving them with plenty of free time to plot the takeover of the West. An earlier generation of the French at least had feebly resisted the Nazi invasion before surrendering.

However, there are developments that raise the possibility that Europeans will yet save themselves by a sensible nationalism. There is, for example, Brexit, the important precursor to President Trump's election in 2016. The people of Britain voted to reclaim British national sovereignty and to restore the integrity of Britain's borders. In addition, there are nationalist stirrings in Germany that may turn out to be part of a broader European rejection of a future under the rule of Islam.

Perhaps the prospect of an Islamic Europe can yet rally Europeans to the defense of Western civilization. If nations in Europe can muster the spirited belief that their nations are worth defending, they may yet hold off the moral and intellectual corruption of radical Islam. It is very much the hope of lovers of liberty everywhere that they do so.
Robert Curry serves on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Institute. He is the author of Common Sense Nation: Unlocking the Forgotten Power of the American Idea and just released Reclaiming Common Sense: Finding Truth in a Post-Truth WorldAmerican Thinker.

Tags: Europeans, keep rejecting. Liberty, Robert Curry, American Thinker To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!

UC Santa Cruz Middle East Propaganda Center's New Head

Gary Fouse

Along with the various ethnic, gender, LGBQ, and women's studies departments on university campuses, the Middle East Studies departments tend to be the worst when it comes to propaganda and indoctrination. In recent years, many of them have been funded with Saudi money. In some cases, they have been established with Saudi money. They routinely specialize in anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-Arab, pro-Islamic BS. They are one of the leading causes of the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping our campuses. In short, they are an embarrassment to the very concept of education and scholarship.

So it is hardly surprising that UC Santa Cruz (America's Wackiest University) would choose another dime-a-dozen anti-Israel, pro-BDS activist to head up their new Center for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Meet Jennifer Derr.


How refreshing it would be to see a Middle East studies department chaired by someone who is pro-Israel. For that matter, even a professor or two would be helpful.

As pointed out by Campus Watch, Derr taught a class in 2014 entitled, "The History of Palestine: From Colonialism to Occupation." Gee, where have I heard that before? She should been fired for plagiarism. What's next, a class on the History of the Lost City of Atlantis?

Or how about this?

"Jennifer Derr’s work explores the configuration and experience of the colonial state in Egypt through its construction of the agricultural environments that lined the banks of the Nile River. Derr traces the intersections of the colonial state in Egypt with the material experiences of environmental infrastructure, resource allocation, disease, and  the geographies of colonial capitalism."

Far be it from me to debate Middle East history with Derr (who has lived ten years in the region). Her area of expertise seems to be in disease outbreaks that occurred in Egypt in the 20th century, which she links to colonial agriculture (in this case, the Brits) and Nile dam construction. I am not arguing the history because I am not qualified, but do I sense a bit of post-colonial emphasis here on blaming all of the problems of the Middle East on the West, colonialism and capitalism? Just asking. After all, that is a large part of Middle East studies teaching in our universities. 

Of course, if Derr is such an expert on the Middle East, some wise guy like me (who is not) might ask the learned professor why she doesn't support a boycott of say, Syria, Sudan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or virtually every other country in the region besides Israel. I would even throw in neighboring countries like Iran and Turkey.

UCSC's own announcement of the establishment of this center, which is also linked in the above CW article, also raised my eyebrows a bit. Particularly this item:

"In addition to the support of faculty in various divisions, this campaign had the full support of the Jewish Studies Program.
“One cannot have a complete understanding of the Jewish past without studying the Middle East and North Africa; likewise, one cannot have a complete understanding of the MENA without studying the region's Jews,” said Alma Heckman, assistant professor of history and Jewish Studies, and the Neufeld-Levin Chair of Holocaust Studies at UC Santa Cruz.
“Since the ancient past, Jews have lived across the MENA region, from Morocco to Iran and everywhere in between,” she added. “Jewish Studies and MENA Studies are inherently complementary. Working in tandem with the UCSC Center for Jewish Studies, the new MENA Center enriches the unique programmatic offerings at UCSC that connect across Jewish and MENA studies.” 

Working in tandem? I can't wait to see how that works out. I know nothing about Dr Heckman, and I agree with her words in the second paragraph. However, I seriously wonder how any Jewish studies department, given the current climate and state of Middle East studies departments in the US, could welcome the establishment of such a center at UCSC, especially when it is headed by a supporter of BDS.

This new center is new. Both it and its director deserve a chance to show how they will proceed. Perhaps, MENA and the Jewish studies department will work harmoniously together. Perhaps, MENA will teach serious scholarship and not just be a propaganda center against the West and Israel. I would be surprised if that turns out to be the case, but I am willing to wait and see. (What else can Little Ol' Me do?) If my suspicions are proved correct, maybe the Department of Education will take a close look at UCSC given President Trump's inclination to cut funding for universities that tolerate anti-Semitism.

Arrogance on Parade

Gary Fouse

Pamela Karlan

I watched much but not all of the impeachment hearings today, and to me, the Democrats did not help their case for impeachment. Not only did they not move the needle in terms of changing anybody's opinion, especially those in Congress who will be voting, they gave the American public a view of academic arrogance with their 4 law professors who testified about whether Trump legally deserved to be impeached. (At least, that's the case with at least 2 of them. Three were pro-impeachment, and one -called by the Republicans- was against impeachment.)

Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan and Harvard Law School Professor Noah Feldman came across as highly partisan, impassioned and arrogant advocates for removing President Trump. Karlan was especially shrill-yes, shrill- with her rants against Trump, even going so far as to make a joke at the expense of the President's son, Barron. (She later apologized, but added that she wished Trump would apologize for things he has said.) She said she was insulted that a Republican member of the committee had commented that she and the other three witnesses were not fact witnesses since they had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case other than having read them. Several times, it seemed she was about to lose her composure.

In contrast, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School, a liberal himself who voted against Trump, but who was called as a witness by the Republicans because he opposes this impeachment, showed class. Having watched him on TV for years, I consider him articulate and intellectually honest. He made his points very effectively, quite the opposite from Karlan, who when she wasn't railing against Trump, seemed to spend half of her time telling us about the law in Merry Olde England and someone named the Sheriff of Windsor. In short, she embarrassed herself. Feldman reminded me of one of those "I'll fight for you" lawyer commercials we see on TV all the time.

Who's next, Michael Avenatti?

What If There Was a Quid Pro Quo?

Gary Fouse

Hat tip The Hill

Yesterday, Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland testified in his opening statement that there was a quid pro quo as to a presidential call with President Trump and a White House visit in exchange for Ukrainian President Zelenskyy committing to investigating Ukraine's alleged involvement in the 2016 US election and investigating the Bidens. He also presumed that military aid was tied to the above commitment by Zelenskyy. The testimony went back and forth with Democrats and Republicans making their own arguments about Sondland's presumptions and the one thing that Trump said directly to him over the phone. "I want nothing. No quid pro quo".

To the media, Sondland's testimony was a "bombshell" Last night on ABC Evening News, David Muir and his correspondents highlighted Sondland's presumptions while explaining away what Trump actually said to Sondland, pointing out that this conversation occurred after the White House had become aware of the whistle blower's complaint. The media concluded that Trump was covering his backside. Meanwhilke, the headline caption on the TV screen was "Bombshell testimony". It was anything but.

At this point, it is pretty clear that the House will vote to impeach Trump, and the Senate will vote not to remove him. The Democrats seem to be pinning their hopes on some smoking gun that will show up proving there was a quid pro quo.  So what if this is true? So what?

My own common sense tells me that in all likelihood, there was a quid pro quo. Trump did want Ukraine to investigate that country's alleged involvement in the 2016 election and he did want them to investigate the entire Burisma scandal, which includes having an unqualified Hunter Biden on its board of directors and Joe Biden's successful demand that the prosecutor investigating Burisma be fired if Ukraine wanted one billion dollars in aid.

In the case of Trump, Republicans point out that Ukraine got the aid, the phone call from Trump, and the meeting with Trump (at the UN) while no investigation was launched.

But let us assume that there was a quid pro quo. Is this not a common part of international diplomacy? For example, is there a quid pro quo when Trump conducts his diplomacy with North Korea? If Norea Korea halts its nuclear weapon program, the US will do this or that. Of course.

But Gary, you say: Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, who is a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. Biden is his political rival.

True. But does that change things?

US foreign aid is hinged to the receiving country not being engaged in corruption, however vague that condition is. Ukraine is corrupt, as are many other countries receiving US aid. In return for our aid, they are supposed to at least demonstrate they are taking steps to fight corruption in order that they may be "certified". Often, that is a sham because it is deemed in our interest to continue aid to a particular country. When I worked with DEA in Thailand in the 1970s, that country was riddled with corruption-and still is. They get plenty of US aid. I could go on and on.

Part of the corruption angle in Ukraine is that they allegedly improperly engaged in meddling in out 2016 election. The controversy over Crowdstrike and DNC hacking, and whether it was done by Ukraine or Russia is a matter of dispute. It is not a matter of dispute that during the election, the Ukrainian ambassador to the US wrote an op-ed criticizing then candidate Trump. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington has confirmed that they were approached by a DNC operative during the campaign who tried to enlist their help in digging up dirt on Trump and Paul Manafort. Rightfully or wrongfully, Trump likely feels that he was the victim of a lot of dirty tricks during the election, and that Ukraine had a role. After all, a Ukrainian court issued a statement that there had been meddling by their country. So is Trump justified in asking Ukraine to investigate that matter? I think he is.

As to the more important matter of the Bidens, that is also a legitimate issue, and if Joe Boden gets the nomination, expect to hear much more about it in those campaign ads. Then-Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine and demanded that the president fire the chief prosecutor-who was investigating Burisma, a company accused of corruption, which had put Hunter Biden on its board of directors though he had no qualifications for the post. Biden told the president that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, Ukraine would not get the aid it had been promised-some one billion dollars. Within 6 hours, the prosecutor was fired. How do we know all this? Biden bragged about it on tape while speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations. Of course, he left out the information about his son being on the board of Burisma and that Burisma was under investigation.

Quid pro quo.

So let us assume the worst: Suppose Trump did have a quid pro quo that included an investigation of the Bidens, and let's assume he did it for purely political reasons. What is worse, the action of Trump in his phone call to Zelenskyy or Biden's demand to the previous Ukrainian president?

And here is another point: If Trump cannot ask for an investigation of Biden because he is a potential opponent in a future election, doesn't that give Biden-or anyone else in a similar position, literally, a license to steal? Is Biden immune from an investigation into his action simply because he is running for Trump's job? No.

$1.98 Beauty Show: UN Human Rights Council Election

Gary Fouse

The UN Human Rights Council has for years been little more than a perverse joke when you consider the number of shady countries that have sat as members of this absurd body. I mean what could be more perverse than having countries with horrible track records on human rights sitting on the UN Human Rights Council?

So today, the HRC, which stands for Human Rights Council (and Hillary Rodham Clinton too) has elected 14 new member nations. Much to the dismay of  most decent and sensible observers, Venezuela has won a seat on the HRC.


Not only has Venezuela been an abuser of the human rights of its own people for years under Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, just within the past year, they have been faced with a humanitarian disaster with thousands of its citizens fleeing across the border to escape starvation-a catastrophe of the government's own making. And this is the country now elected to sit on the HRC. Next thing you know, the HRC will select a nation that still practices slavery.

Oh wait! What's this?


Yes, indeed. Mauritania, the West African nation where slavery is still practiced, is also one of the lucky winners. (Technically, there is a law against slavery, passed in 2007 (!), but it is largely unenforced.)

Here is the new makeup of the UNHRC as of 1-1-20:

African States
Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Libya, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Togo
Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar
Eastern Europe
Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine        
Latin American and Caribbean States
Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Western Europe and other States
Australia, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain

Watching this "election" reminds me of that old $1.98  Beauty Show, Rip Taylor and all.

Image result for 1.98 beauty show

Somebody tell me it's all a  spoof.

In Defense of China, Nepotism, and Influence Peddling: Juan Cole Champions the Bidens and China

Gary Fouse

University of Michigan comedian/professor Juan Cole is rushing to the defense of Joe and Hunter Biden, at least when it comes to their shady dealings with China. As a matter of fact, it looks like Cole is a solid defender of China too. In his latest article in Informed Comment (his blog), Cole tells us there was nothing wrong with then-Vice President Biden taking son, Hunter, along on a official trip to China, which netted Hunter a one and a half billion dollar business deal with the Chinese. In fact, here is the title of Cole's post:

Trump, head of GOP, demands Chinese Communist Party Prosecute Businessman for Crime of Making Money


First of all, there is nothing wrong with making money. It's how you make it that counts.

Cole starts off his essay with a history lesson of how the capitalist USA, or to be more specific, the Republican party, has always had it in for communism going back to the Russian Revolution of 1917.

"The irony of Trump publicly asking China to investigate the Bidens should not be lost on us. The Republican Party has campaigned since the 1917 October Revolution against Communism, championing the business classes and the rights of Capital (i.e. the inviolable rights of those who come to monopolize capital)."

By the same token, the irony of Cole, who seems to favor socialism over capitalism, defending a capitalist like Hunter Biden, who enriched himself in China (and Ukraine) thanks to his father being vice president, should not be lost on us either. Even capitalists like myself think that nepotism, conflicts of interest, and influence peddling are wrong. 

"Note that Trump has been working on a China investigation of Hunter Biden for some time behind the scenes, and while he denies it, his slapping of tariffs on so many Chinese goods may in part be his way of pressuring Beijing to give up the goods. It is yet another impeachable offense."

I seem to recall that Trump early on decided to change the status quo of our trade relationship with the Chinese because we were getting screwed. Trump has been in office since January 2017, but now with the Hunter Biden issue front and center, Cole is accusing Trump of using tariffs to force China to look into the Biden issue-which, according to Cole is yet another impeachable offense, no less! (I have no idea what the others are.) In short, Cole's attempt to link Trump's tariff war with China to the Hunter/Joe Biden scandal is rather flimsy, to say the least.

But it gets better as Cole conjures up the ghosts of Joe McCarthy and George F. Kennan. 

"Cooler heads such as George F. Kennan did not view China as a strategic threat to the United States and very much doubted that Moscow could dominate it. Kennan was enough of a social scientist to recognize that the big agrarian countries of East Asia did not have the sort of political economy that was suited to American-style capitalism, and that they might go through a Communist phase. As long as it did not get in the way of American geopolitics, he felt, why should Washington care?"

George Kennan may have been a much respected, albeit controversial diplomat, but China has proved to be, indeed, a strategic threat to the US, which has gone much farther than simply choosing to go communist. In addition, one might think that Cole, who is supposed to be a historian, might mention Mao Zedong, the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962), and the millions of Chinese killed by the regime during their "Communist phase". He also seems to have overlooked China's intervention against the US and its UN allies in the Korean War!! Is he aware of what is happening in Hong Kong as we speak? The question I would pose to Cole is this: Perhaps you think China was not a strategic threat to the US back in the days of McCarthy and Kennan, but do you actually think they are not a strategic threat to the US (not to mention Asia in general) today?

More conspiracy:

"I think we know exactly what Republicans of the 1950s would think about Trump cozying up to Beijing in order to put a domestic political rival in a vise."

No, I don't think you do know. Actually, back in the 1950s, the gap between the Republicans and Democrats in terms of ideology was nowhere near as wide as it is today. As for Trump cozying up to China- in spite of the tariff war- tying it to this Joe/Hunter Biden issue is a stretch. Trump's China policy was much in evidence early in his administration, long before this Biden scandal came out.

"Never mind that Hunter Biden did not personally invest in a partially Chinese government-owned investment firm, BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Company, until 2017 after his father was out of office. He only put in some $400,000, a tenth of the company’s holdings, which then come out to $4 million; and Hunter Biden maintains that he hasn’t seen a dime in returns yet. So he hasn’t exactly taken $1.5 billion out of China, though he may be guilty of influence-peddling (on an extremely small scale in China)."

The trip in question, when then-Vice President Biden flew to China and took Hunter along with him was in 2013, while Joe still had another 3 years to go as Veep. I don't know the particulars of the deal Hunter brought back with him, but the fact remains, that Hunter used his father's official trip to gain a business deal with the Chinese. He had no business being on that trip, and it is up to Joe Biden to explain to the public what exactly happened with Hunter on that trip and why he was there in the first place.

Cole in fact, concedes that Hunter made some sort of business deal and was (maybe) engaging in influence peddling, but that it was on "an extremely small scale in China".

"To have a Republican administration characterize Hunter Biden’s tiny China investment, done after his father was a civilian, as some sort of massive criminal undertaking is another fantastic claim from the biggest liar-in-chief the United States has ever had."

So he made a "tiny" investment, and then Cole says it all happened after Joe left office!? Then the learned professor segues into a rather unscholarly description of Trump as the "biggest liar-in-chief the United States has ever had."

And then Cole adds the cherry to the whipped cream topping with this suggestion to the great unwashed out there who support Trump and his agenda.:

"Maybe the MAGA crowd should rethink its opposition to socialism. Many of them are white working class people with limited education, and they are the ones that would most benefit from it. And since Trump seems to think there’s something wrong with making money, it isn’t as though the old “free enterprise” mantra means much any more."

Yes, People, we are all a bunch of white goobers with limted education. I myself confess that I do not possess a PhD like Cole. I got my bachelors degree at the age of 25 after doing my Army hitch and got a masters degree at age 48.  Fortunately, I stopped there. I do have enough education and life experience to know that socialism/communism is a failure as evidenced everywhere it has been tried. It is an ecomomic failure and a political failure since it requires an authoritarian state to enforce its vision. Would it help me? Hardly, all it would do is raise my taxes through the ceiling and take away my liberties.

Cole is clearly an elitist. I immediately saw that when I saw him speak at California State University at Long Beach in 2014. He clearly favors a socialist form of government and possibly even more. That is his right as well as his right to say and write nonsense. I would never take that right away from him. If we disagree with him, we are free to express our views as well.

I will close with a question to Dr Cole: Had we been talking about Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump accompanying President Trump to China on an official mission and using the occasion and family relationship to Trump to make business deals with China, what would Cole be writing about that in Informed Comment? Here is the answer: He would say that it represents another impeachable offense.

Adam Schiff's Gross Mischaracterization of the Trump-Zelensky Call

Gary Fouse

Today, Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, did something truly despicable. Already having seen the unredacted transcript of President Trump's July 25 conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, he then made up his own dialogue and read it into his opening statement. Below is what Schiff said today in opening the hearing with the testimony of National Intelligence Director Joseph McGuire.


Here is the transcript itself as turned over to Congress. Nowhere does it say things like Trump telling Zelensky, " I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent".


Schiff is now claiming that his words were meant as a parody of what Trump told Zelensky. It is true that in his remarks, Schiff used terms like, "in essence" in presenting his version. But Schiff is not a stupid man. Far from it. He structured his words very carefully as to give the viewer a certain impression while adding just enough language to give him his escape hatch when his mischaracterization was pointed out-as it quickly was.

In addition, Schiff is not a man who deals in parody. Humor is not in his bag.He presents himself as a serious, reasoned, and  moral voice. It is a facade. Schiff is a deeply partisan politician who deals in cleverly disguised dishonesty. This is a man who for months claimed to have the evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians-evidence that has never materialized on a narrative that has been discredited by none other than Robert Mueller himself.

Now come this latest rabbit hole about Ukraine and Schiff is leading the charge armed with false information. Did Schiff, in his opening remarks, make any mention of the underlying issue behind the Trump-Zelensky conversation-that then VP Biden threatened the then-Ukrainian president with cancellation of one billion dollars in US loan guarantees if he didn't fire the chief prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings, who had mysteriously placed Joe's son, Hunter Biden, on its board of directors and paid him some 3 million dollars over the course of three years? Biden himself is on videotape telling an audience that he did exactly that and got the results he wanted. Should that not be investigated by both countries?

One can only pray that the vast majority of the American public will see this for what it is-the latest made up scandal in a never-ending quest to remove Trump from office.