Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Ann Coulter: Trump’s Problem with Women

May 18, 2016

Ann Coulter: Trump’s Problem with Women, Breitbart, Ann Coulter, May 18, 2016

The New York Times’ front-page article last Saturday on Donald J. Trump’s dealings with women forced me into a weekend of self-examination. As much as I support Trump, this isn’t a cult of personality. He’s not Mao, Kim Jong-un or L. Ron Hubbard. We can like our candidates, but still acknowledge their flaws. No one’s perfect.

I admit there are some things about Trump that give me pause. I’m sure these will come out eventually, so I’m just going to list them.

First — and this is corroborated by five contemporaneous witnesses — in 1978, Trump violently raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel room, then, as he was leaving, looked at her bloody lip and said, “Better put some ice on that” — oh wait, I’m terribly sorry. Did I say Trump? I didn’t mean Trump, I meant Bill Clinton.

Hang on — here we go! Knowing full well about Bill Clinton’s proclivity to sexually assault women, about three weeks after that rape, Trump cornered Broaddrick at a party and said, pointedly, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do.”

No! My mistake! That wasn’t Trump either. That was Hillary Clinton… But this next one I’m sure was Trump.

In the early 1990s, Trump invited a young female staffer to his hotel room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it” — WAIT A SECOND!

I don’t know how this keeps happening. That was Bill Clinton. Please bear with me — it’s late at night and my notes are jumbled.

As CEO of an organization, Trump had a female employee, just months out of her teens, perform oral sex on him while he made business calls. That girl’s name was Monica Lewin– No! Wrong again! That was Bill Clinton, too! Please don’t stop reading. Let me find my Trump notes…

What I meant was that Trump was the one who later smeared that girl as a delusional stalker. She may have volunteered for the sex — at around age 20 — but Monica Lewinsky didn’t volunteer to be slandered! And yet this fiend, this user-of-women, this retrograde misogynist, Donald Trump, deployed his journalist friends, like Sidney Blumenthal, to spread rumors that Monica was a stalker, trying to blackmail the president.

Oh, boy — this is embarrassing. This must seem very sloppy. That wasn’t Trump either; it was Hillary Clinton.

There must be something here that was Trump… Here! I have one.

When an attractive woman desperately in need of a job came to Trump’s office in 1993, instead of helping, he lunged at her, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast and put her hand on his genitals. He later told a mistress that the claim was absurd because the woman, Kathleen Willey, had such small breasts.

Uh-oh — you’re not going to believe this, but — yep, that was Bill Clinton.

This one, I’m sure was Trump. In January 1992, Trump went on 60 Minutes to slime nightclub singer Gennifer Flowers, knowing full well she was telling the truth. He implied she belonged in a loony bin, telling millions of viewers “every time she called, distraught… she said sort of wacky things.”

Dammit! I don’t know how this keeps happening. That wasn’t Trump! That was Hillary, smearing one of her husband’s sexual conquests.

Let’s just go back to the Times‘ story, based on months of investigation and interviews with hundreds of women. I’ll give it to you straight: When Trump was at the New York Military Academy as a teenager, one person who knew him said — and this is corroborated by two other witnesses: “Donald was extremely sensitive to whether or not the women he invited to campus were pretty.”

I almost threw up reading that. I am physically ill.

Why Donald Trump Can Be the Real Conservative

May 18, 2016

Why Donald Trump Can Be the Real Conservative, American ThinkerRobert Weissberg, May 18, 2016

[T[he often obscure regulatory processes, not high-profile laws like the Affordable Care Act are the deeper menace. It is here that totalitarianism slowly metastasizes. Trump, with scant effort, can advance the traditional idea of national government: strong in its constitutional responsibilities, especially defense, and limited elsewhere.

**************************

Countless self-proclaimed conservatives are denouncing Trump (or being coy in promising future support) for being insufficiently conservative. Leaving aside whether there exists some authoritative written-in-stone conservative doctrine, this assessment misunderstands why a Trump administration will probably be more conservatives that the likes of a Ted Cruz or others asserting greater authenticity.

Trump’s conservative bona fides are not based on private assurances that he will ignore past liberal inclinations. It also has nothing to do with all the “big issues” usually employed to certify ideological orthodoxy.

Trump’s conservatism will be rooted in inaction, a view of conservatism that has not infused politics since the days of golf-loving President Eisenhower or, better yet, Calvin Coolidge. In this conservatism, the White House does not deliver fatwas about transgendered bathrooms or otherwise engage in myriad radical egalitarian-driven social engineering schemes. It does not sponsor White House conferences on schoolyard bullying. It is laissez-faire conservatism sans libertarian baggage.

Trump can accomplish this mission almost effortlessly. No need to hire policy wonks to draft dense reports or negotiate complicated deals with Congress. Nor will Donald run the risk of being overruled by liberal judges — inaction can in principle violate the law but it is not easy to prosecute sloth and in many instances, indolence is the perfect antidote to the legacy left by President Obama and his energetic pen and cell phone.

The secret to Trump’s do-nothing conservative agenda will come from his appointments in the often obscure federal bureaucracy, not introducing new laws to please religious fundamentalists or going to court to reverse job-killing EPA rules. Here, far beyond public view, is where unelected ideologues with extra time on their hands run wild. These are zealots who pressure universities to over-ride due process to purge the campus of alleged sexual aggression at some frat house, agonize over federal guidelines regarding what constitutes a healthy school lunch and threaten legal action if public schools fail to use racial quotas in handing out suspensions and expulsions. Meanwhile, thanks to these bureaucrats on-a-mission the residents of Smallville are forever threatened that their lives will be disrupted by having to sign a Department of Justice consent decree to build 1000 new large federally subsidized apartments for troubled inner-city residents. In fact, the millions now wasted on promoting diversity and inclusion in the military can fund a whole new squadron of F-35s, too. And this list of intrusions that will never occur under President Trump is almost endless.

No need to scour all the resumes that will be sent to Trump’s transition team to uncover trusted folk disinclined to reclassify every puddle into a navigable waterway. Trump will just not fill these positions, and while this “lazy” strategy lacks the sex appeal of a spirited public confrontation, the impact is just what the doctor ordered — bloated budgets shrink and America escapes egalitarian busybodies viewing every inequality as a crime needing Washington’s intervention. When social justice warriors whine about the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education’s lackadaisical handling of complaints that The Boy Scouts Act, a rule that requires Boy Scout troops meeting on school grounds be hyperinclusive, the Donald will merely say, “I’m working on it.”

Doctrinaire conservatives might disdain such passivity and prefer high-profile, feel-good assault to undo decades of liberalism. Leaving aside the long odds of success, this approach fails to grasp how the often obscure regulatory processes, not high-profile laws like the Affordable Care Act are the deeper menace. It is here that totalitarianism slowly metastasizes. Trump, with scant effort, can advance the traditional idea of national government: strong in its constitutional responsibilities, especially defense, and limited elsewhere.

Ironically, of all the candidates seeking the conservative mantel, Trump may be by temperament and outside obligations best suited to achieve victory via apathy. He has a business to over-see, disdains policy minutia and he will undoubtedly use all available energy for what really drives his passions — effective boarders, a strong military, economic prosperity and not how best to rescue pre-teens with a confused sexual identity. His slogan should be: Elect Trump, the Do Nothing Conservative.

 

Forget NATO. Trump Should Defund the UN

May 18, 2016

Forget NATO. Trump Should Defund the UN, PJ Media, Roger L. Simon, May 17, 2016

(Please see also, Where UNESCO and ISIS Converge. — DM)

Trump fire UN

The courage to go after sacred cows is one of Donald Trump’s more appealing, if controversial, traits.   He raised the issue of NATO, contending the USA pays far too much of the freight in the mutual defense pact.

Such proposals, the candidate has made clear, are not so much policies as “suggestions” or what one might call, from his business perspective, negotiating positions.

Regarding the NATO suggestion, frankly, I am of two minds.  While it’s clearly arguable the American contribution is excessive, the investment might be necessary for the preservation of the alliance (weak as it is) and to maintain the necessary U.S. leadership position.  “Leading from behind” has been one of the obvious fiascoes of the 21st century.

But I have another, somewhat similar, suggestion for Donald about which I have no ambivalence.  It’s time for the U.S. seriously to curtail, if not end, its mammoth annual contribution to the United Nations that dwarfs those made by all the other 192 member-states.

Here’s how CNS News reported the situation in 2012:

In one of its last actions of the year, the United Nations General Assembly on Christmas Eve agreed to extend for another three years the formula that has U.S. taxpayers contributing more than one-fifth of the world body’s regular budget.No member-state called for a recorded vote, and the resolution confirming the contributions that each country will make for the 2013-2015 period was summarily adopted. The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.

The U.S. has accounted for 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years.

That’s 22 percent for virtually nothing.

While the UN many have been formed in an outburst of post-World War II idealism, it has descended into an international society for Third World kleptocrats of mind-boggling proportions—the Iraq War  oil-for-food scandal being only one nauseating example--who engage in non-stop Israel-bashing to distract their populaces from their own thievery. What in the Sam Hill do we get out of that?

Everybody knows this, of course. When critical negotiations take place (i.e., the Iran nuclear talks, speaking of fiascoes, and the Syrian peace talks, not that they have much chance of success), they are removed from the UN and conducted between the serious players. No one is curious about what Zimbabwe’s Mugabe has to say, at least one hopes not.

Now it’s certain this suggestion—defunding the UN—would be treated with (feigned) uncomprehending derision by Hillary and even more contempt by Bernie, who would most probably like to cede US hegemony to the United Nations anyway, assuming some good socialist, like Venezuela’s Maduro or Brazil’s Rousseff (well, maybe not her), was secretary-general.

But the American voter, I would imagine, when informed of even a smattering of the facts, would support Trump in defunding or, more likely, greatly curtailing America’s financial support of the United Nations.  It’s a negotiation, after all.

Maybe the UN can be reduced to a few divisions of more practical use like the World Health Organization. UNESCO has, sadly, already gone the way of political insanity. Whatever the case, a smaller UN footprint in NYC would be a big step in the right direction. Think what a positive it would be for the traffic and parking situation on the East side of Manhattan.

 

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims

May 17, 2016

Petraeus: Self-Censor To Avoid Offending Muslims, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, May 17, 2016

Petrayus

David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of CENTCOM, published a piece in the Washington Post last Friday entitled “Anti-Muslim Bigotry Aids Islamist Terrorists.”

Wrote Petraeus:

[I am] increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

Petraeus’s target isn’t just Donald Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is referring to all speech that some Muslims might find offensive, and this has sweeping and ominous implications.

Petraeus doesn’t just oppose what Trump now characterizes as “just a suggestion“ solely as a policy measure. Petraeus is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made; that just to speak them is damaging:

[T]he ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.

He feels simply speaking such thoughts may:

 … compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.

How will these words do that? Well, you see:

[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.

Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the United States. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because he says it will enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against America. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.

His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Petraeus has done this before. When he headed up the international coalition in Afghanistan, he said this of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Qur’an:

[It] was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.

He warned that the Qur’an-burning would endanger American troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He issued a statement saying that he hoped:

 … the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.

I opposed the Qur’an-burning, but not for the reasons Petraeus did.

I don’t like the burning of books. And I’d rather that the contents of the Qur’an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known.

However, Jones was free to do what he wanted to do. Petraeus would have done better to have told the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker.

He would have done better to tell them that their murderous rage over any burning of the Qur’an was an outrageous overreaction, and that bloodshed over such burnings was a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they thought Jones was committing.

The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy’s worldview and perspective and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts — not just the military one — to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.

Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would likely respond: “Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur’an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation.”

This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression. This also ignores the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an to justify violence and win recruits.

Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should have defended Jones’ freedom of expression, and used the burning as a teaching moment in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have said:

We are going to defend our vision of society no matter what you bring against us. The U.S. will always defend American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional freedoms.

The OIC’s effort to compel the West into censoring itself regarding criticism of Islam is going very well.

In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech. Instead, they opted to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.

The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it so that they won’t join the jihad.

In reality, this argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do, because they now have proof this tactic works. They are in fact already doing this. In the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, Petraeus is saying that the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want. Conform our speech to suit them.

If we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more. More aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving the West a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.

On Clinton Cash, Or, It’s Always Worse Than You Think

May 17, 2016

On Clinton Cash, Or, It’s Always Worse Than You Think

By Roger Kimball

May 13, 2016

Source: On Clinton Cash, Or, It’s Always Worse Than You Think | PJ Media

In his column for PJ Media, my friend Ron Radosh, the distinguished historian, outlines the case for believing that Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” compared to Donald Trump. Ron says that he is “fully aware” of Hillary’s liabilities, yet concludes:

On foreign policy, there is more hope that [she] will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad.

Ron is not alone in asserting this. Several prominent conservatives have, with varying degrees of hesitation (not to say repugnance), embraced Hillary Clinton as the less bad alternative to Donald Trump.

A new film, which will debut Monday at Cannes, may force them to reconsider that judgment.

Clinton Cash, the documentary film which I watched in previews yesterday, is based on the best-selling exposé of the same name by Peter Schweizer, the tireless investigative journalist who has devoted himself to confronting political corruption and crony capitalism regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrators. Produced by Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon and directed by M. A. Taylor, Clinton Cash is crisply narrated by Schweizer and provides a relentless and devastating portrait of brazen financial venality in exchange for political favors.

I read through Clinton Cash quickly when it came out last May. This was no right-wing hit job (as the Clinton campaign asserted) but rather a methodical and exhaustively sourced chronicle of how the Clintons parlayed Bill’s celebrity, Hillary’s position as secretary of State, and her possible future tenure as president of the United States into a veritable Niagara of cash.

Eye-popping speaking fees for Bill — $250,000, $500,000, even $750,000 a pop — and millions upon millions directed to the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots. Where was the money coming from? Did they actually find his “wisdom” that valuable?

No. The money came from multinational corporations that needed a favor. Shady foreign financiers. Dubious state entities in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South America, and elsewhere.

Are you worried about “money in politics”? Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years.

The Associated Press estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero (really, minus $500K). Now they are worth about $200 million.

How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?

Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash is a nauseating experience.

At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.

Do you doubt the authority of Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution? How about The New York Times, then?

Last year, following up with independent investigative research based on revelations in Clinton Cash, the Times published a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported:

… are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Worried yet? It gets worse:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

It gets still worse, much worse. Read the book. But then watch the documentary, coming to a television screen near you much sooner than the announced release date of July 24.

It gives a detailed analysis of how the Clintons hypocritically mouth progressive pieties while selling out those values to multinational corporate interests on the one hand, and some of world’s creepiest political actors on the other.

Clinton Cash should outrage not only conservatives but also supporters of Hillary Clinton’s Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders. Despite its thriller-like scenarios, this brilliant documentary is not a partisan melodrama. It is a public service.

This should be watched by anyone who cares about restoring basic trust and accountability to our political life. The sad truth is, I conclude, Hillary Clinton is ostentatiously unfit to be President of the United States. We do not, pace my friend Ron Radosh, possess instruments delicate enough to determine that she is the “lesser of two evils.”

What we do know, however — what this documentary demonstrates beyond cavil — is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are as corrupt as they are hypocritical, lining their pockets by selling out the values they pretend to cherish. It makes for a repellent spectacle.

Trump, Ryan and the Islam Problem

May 16, 2016

Trump, Ryan and the Islam Problem, PJ Media, Roger L. Simon, May 15, 2016

trump_reading_submission_article_banner_5-16-16-1.sized-770x415xc

One of the main areas of contention between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan is the question of Muslim immigration. In early December, when Trump first made his proposal (now a “suggestion”) to stop all such immigration until we “understood what was going on,” one of the first to react in high dudgeon was Ryan, who declared: “This is not conservatism.”

He was applauded for his four-word pronouncement by those “conservatives” at the Washington Post, who called his response “near-perfect.” Actually, to me it seemed morally narcissistic and had little to with conservatism, pro or con. Ryan wanted to disassociate himself as quickly as possible from the ugly and seemingly racist Trump.

But let’s look more closely at what the speaker said during that response:

When we voted to pause the refugee program a few weeks ago, I made very clear at the time: there would not be a religious test. There would be a security test. And that is because freedom of religion is a fundamental Constitutional principle. It’s a founding principle of this country.

Aside from the obvious — if people are fighting and killing you in the name of a religion, how do you ignore the “religious test” — what about that “security test”? Is it really happening or are people slipping into the country by various means, including an open border, with no test whatsoever?  What about reports of an ISIS camp eight miles from El Paso?

And, perhaps more importantly, did that “pause” Ryan voted for actually take place in any meaningful way? According to the New York Post a “surge operation” bringing Syrian refugees to America was already in operation this past April.  By “surge operation,” Gina Kassem — regional refugee coordinator in Amman — told reporters, it was meant the resettlement process that normally took 18 to 24 months would be sped up to 3 months. (Some pause!) And the figure of 10,000 refugees that has often been proffered by the administration was a minimum, not a maximum.

What is the maximum and how will they be vetted? And just how do you “vet” during a “surge”? Is that what Ryan really meant by a “security test”?  I doubt it, but Trump should ask him at their next reconciliation meeting. As they say, Paul’s got some “xplainin” to do.

Now this isn’t a simple question. The Syrian people have suffered mightily at the hands of various psychotic despots, secular and religious. Trump has called for supporting more extensive refugee camps in the region, an idea that makes more sense than bringing them here.  (He has also called for the Gulf states to pay for them — good luck with that.)

The main point is that this is a significant campaign issue and intelligent solutions have to be discussed.  Trump has put Rudy Giuliani in charge of studying this from his side, an excellent choice.

There may be a short-term fix, but there won’t be a short-term answer. This is a very long-term problem, the longest one we have, dwarfing the deficit and everything else — civilizational, really.  Will we be America or will we go the way of Europe and turn semi-Islamic like France in Houellebecq’s novel?

It wouldn’t be hard. We have been living under an administration that has been an enabler of Islamism.  Obama has chosen to ally himself with Islamists like Turkey’s Erdogan, Egypt’s Morsi and, most stunningly, Iran’s Khamenei, while abjuring Egypt’s al-Sisi, who seeks to reform Islam.  Go figure.

On top of all that — it’s hard to believe this — there are reports our administration was colluding with Russia in an attempt to get Israel to give back the Golan Heights to Syria in some putative peace settlement. Syria? Needless to say, Mr. Netanyahu was not amused.

In any case, on the immediate question of Muslim immigration, Trump may have sounded excessive and even been excessive.  That’s his technique — he likes to get our attention, then negotiate. But in this particular negotiation (not, for example, on entitlements) the basic talking points — and the American people — are on Donald’s side. Ryan should listen.

Democrats Try to Outlaw Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban

May 16, 2016

Democrats Try to Outlaw Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, May 16, 2016

(Since Islamic jihad has been deemed un-Islamic, and is therefore claimed to have no nexus with Islam, there is presently no effective way to bar Islamic terrorists from entry. Perhaps those who oppose Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslim immigration until ways are found to keep jihadists out should try to find ways. — DM)

don-byer

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has certainly turned American politics on its head. Has it ever happened before in American history that a political party began to frame legislation against an opposing candidate’s proposals before he was even elected – much less one whose election was as inconceivable as the mainstream media would have us believe about Donald Trump? Yet that is exactly what the Democrats are doing: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) is spearheading a bill that would block a President Trump from instituting the temporary halt on Muslim immigration into the United States that he has proposed.

“It’s very narrow in scope,” says Beyer of his Freedom of Religion Act. “We’re not going to discriminate when it comes to immigration based on religion.” He added that his bill was intended to “appeal to hope rather than fear.” In our pusillanimous and puerile age, “fear” is not just a weakness of character, but a moral flaw: if you fear being beheaded or blown up by Islamic jihadists, you’re an evil person. And to be sure, fear is never to be encouraged or given into, but its opposite is not hope, it’s courage and resoluteness.

Beyer is not offering courage or resoluteness. He is proposing a ban on using someone’s religion as a reason for blocking them from entering the country based on the politically correct fiction that Islamic jihad terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that therefore to be concerned about jihad terrorists entering the country along with peaceful Muslim refugees is simply a manifestation of bigotry, racism and “Islamophobia.”

What Beyer is offering is “hope” and a rejection of “fear.” We should “hope” that there will be no jihadis among the immigrants. We should “hope” that there will not be another jihad attack a la San Bernardino perpetrated by another refugee like Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino jihad murderer who had passed five separate background checks from five separate U.S. government agencies. We should “hope” that the Islamic State will not make good on its threat to send jihadis into Europe and North America among the refugees. We should “hope” that we can continue to pursue self-destructive and suicidal policies without suffering any negative consequences.

To reject all of Beyer’s “hopes” would be, in his view, to succumb to “fear,” and remember: fear is morally wrong. Trump, after all, is like Hitler for even suggesting this temporary moratorium: hard-Left journalist Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill told Bill Maher on Real Time Friday: “I believe that what we’re seeing with Trump has whiffs of how Hitler rose to power.” Yes, of course: Hitler stopped emigration of Jews and kept them in Germany so he could kill them, while Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration so that jihadis won’t kill us — clearly they’re the same thing, if you’re a hardcore doctrinaire Leftist.

Meanwhile, those who vilify Trump for proposing this have never actually come up with any viable alternative proposal for keeping jihadis out of the country. We’re just supposed to reject “fear” and rely on “hope” that it won’t all blow up on us – you know, the “hope” that prevented the jihad attacks in Paris and Brussels and San Bernardino and Garland and Chattanooga and Boston and Fort Hood. The “hope” that leaves us defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad, for fear of appearing “Islamophobic.”

For Leftists like Don Beyer and Jeremy Scahill, the mass murder of innocent non-Muslim civilians in the U.S. is preferable to taking any effective action to defend our nation – for to do so would be to succumb to “fear,” that fear that our Leftist moral superiors insist is a character defect. Why did the U.S. declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor? Instead of giving in to “fear,” it should have laid down its arms and opened the door to unrestricted Japanese immigration. Britain should have done the same thing after Hitler invaded Poland: instituted a ban on anti-Nazi legislation and opened its arms and its shores to the Germans. What could possibly have gone wrong? Primitive man should never have fashioned a spear; he should instead have let the lion maul him; instead, he gave in to “fear.”

Don Beyer and the Democrats are, for the umpteenth time, demanding that the nation choose defeat and suicide.

Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,

May 16, 2016

Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, May 16, 2016

wc

Reprinted from Breitbart.

While millions of Republican primary voters have chosen Donald Trump as the party’s nominee, Bill Kristol and a small but well-heeled group of Washington insiders are preparing a third party effort to block Trump’s path to the White House. Their plan is to run a candidate who could win three states and enough votes in the electoral college to deny both parties the needed majority.  This would throw the election into the House of Representatives, which would then elect a candidate the Kristol group found acceptable. The fact that this would nullify the largest vote ever registered for a Republican primary candidate, the fact that it would jeopardize the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, and more than likely make Hillary Clinton president apparently doesn’t faze Kristol and company at all. This is to give elitism a bad name.

One would think that the Trump opponents would have substantial reasons for pursuing such a destructive course. But examination of their expressed reasons shows that one would be wrong. Their chief justification for opposing Trump is that he is not a “constitutional conservative” and in fact is “without principles” and therefore dangerous. The evidence offered is that he has supported Democrats in the past, and changed his positions on important issues. Yet in seeking a candidate to carry their standard the Kristol group has approached billionaire investor Mark Cuban a figure uncannily similar to Trump. During the presidential election year 2012, the Hollywood Reporter noted that, “in February, billionaire sports and media mogul Mark Cuban was seen hugging Barack Obama at a $30,000-a-plate fundraiser for the president’s re-election bid.” Cuban was also a visible campaigner for Obama four years earlier. A fan of Obamacare, Cuban wrote a column forHuffington Post just before the 2012 election titled, “I would vote for Gov. Romney if he were a Democrat.” Now it is true that Mark Cuban eventually had second thoughts about Obama, and perhaps even about Democrats. But what these facts show is that Kristol and his allies are willing to elect anyone but Trump and have even fewer principles than the man they hate.

A second charge against Trump is that his character is so bad (worse than Hillary’s or Bill’s?) that no right-thinking Republican could regard him as White House worthy. “I just don’t think he has the character to be president of the United States,” Kristol declared in a recent interview. “It’s beyond any particular issue I disagree with him on, or who he picks as VP or something. The man in the last five days has embraced Mike Tyson, the endorsement of a convicted rapist in Indiana…. He likes toughness, Donald Trump, that’s great, he likes rapists.” This would be fairly damning if the facts were as black and white as Kristol presents them. But as anyone familiar with the sports world would know, Mike Tyson had a dramatic change of heart following his release from prison – rejected the life he had led, repented his past, and committed himself to a course of humility and service to others.

Here is an online news summary of the transformation: “Former boxing champ Mike Tyson has dedicated the rest of his life to caring for others – because he considers himself a ‘pig’ who has ‘wasted’ so many years of his life.”  Tyson himself toldDetails Magazine: “The first stage of my life was just a whole bunch of selfishness. Just a whole bunch of gifts to myself and people who didn’t necessarily deserve it. Now I’m 44, and I realize that my whole life is just a f**king waste. ‘Greatest man on the planet’? I wasn’t half the man I thought I was.” In an autobiographical best-seller, Tyson also conducted a searing self-examination, which was condensed into a one-man Broadway performance and HBO special. Whatever one thinks of Mike Tyson before or after his conviction, one has to concede that he has made a serious self-inventory and changed the way he sees himself and others. If Kristol were serious about the politics of winning elections rather than merely pontificating about them, he would have known these facts and also recognized that Tyson is an icon to an important segment of the voting population – one that is more likely than not to offer sincere repenters a second chance. Electorally speaking, Trump’s ability to win the endorsement of an African American sports champion is no small achievement. Nor is it an isolated one. Trump has also been endorsed by Adrien Broner, a world boxing champion in four weight classes, who is also African-American.

In addition to alleging that Trump is lacking in principles and character, Kristol claims that the Republican candidate is a crackpot conspiracy theorist, a disqualifying trait. Kristol’s evidence is a remark Trump made on the eve of the Indiana primary suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father might have something to hide about his alleged acquaintance with Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Wrote Kristol: “Calling in to Fox and Friends, Donald Trump, as Politico summarized it, ‘alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting aNational Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.’” The liberal writers at Politico can perhaps be forgiven for reporting that the Enquireronly claimed that Oswald and the senior Cruz were pictured together. The Enquirer actually published the picture.

“Here’s Trump in his own crazed words,” Kristol continues: [Trump:] “His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Kennedy’s being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don’t even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it. I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible.’” Comments Kristol: “What’s horrible is a leading presidential candidate trading in crackpot conspiracy theories.”

So it might be if Trump were actually putting forward a conspiracy theory.  But what we have here, obviously, is not a theorybut some Trumpian campaign mischief – not dissimilar in form to his earlier suggestion that because Ted Cruz was born in Canada he might not be able to actually run for president even if he were to win the nomination. These were both campaign tricks – dirty tricks if you like – to throw a rival off balance and gain an advantage. Were they dirtier than publishing nude photographs of Trump’s wife during the Utah primary, or publishing a false story that Ben Carson was quitting the race on the eve of the Iowa primary, as the Cruz campaign did? Do they justify sabotaging a Republican run for the presidency and potentially electing Hillary Clinton?

Kristol is aware that his strategy risks electing an Obama loyalist, and attempts to neutralize the objection by claiming that Trump is himself an Obama clone whose policies would be no different: “[T]here is a president whose policies Donald Trump’s would in fact resemble: Barack Obama. No intervention against dictators? Check. No action to prevent mass slaughter? Check. Another reset with Putin’s Russia to break what Trump calls the ‘cycle of hostility’…? Check. ‘Getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world?’ Check! Trump’s agenda turns out to be Obama’s all-too-familiar agenda of national retreat masked by a rhetoric of America First bellicosity.”

This is pretty shabby stuff. Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses and a terrorist state. One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump’s readiness to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama’s strategy of retreat and surrender. Contrary to Kristol’s assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators. He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq. Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim. As for Trump proposing “another re-set with Putin’s Russia,” there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting a serious re-set – a re-set from strength – would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be a repeat of Obama’s policies. It would be just the opposite.

“Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world” is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama’s intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spreadinstability throughout the region. “Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability” is a foreign policy any true constitutional conservative would support. Unless that conservative was driven by an irrational hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump’s promise to put American interests first and restore respect for America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a “national retreat” by a very unprincipled – and careless – individual.

All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol and his “Never Trump” cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided America’s mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies. I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered – Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS and Hamas – have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.

Nine House Chairmen Endorse Donald J. Trump for President

May 15, 2016

Nine House Chairmen Endorse Donald J. Trump for President

by Alex Swoyer

14 May 2016 Washington, DC

Source: Nine House Chairmen Endorse Donald J. Trump for President – Breitbart

by Alex Swoyer 14 May 2016Washington, DC

Nine chairmen in the United States House of Representatives are putting their support behind Donald Trump.

Trump announced the endorsement on Facebook, listing the members who support him for president:

Steve Chabot (Small Business), Michael Conaway (Agriculture), Jeb Hensarling (Financial Services), Candice Miller (House Administration), Jeff Miller (Veterans’ Affairs), Tom Price (Budget), Pete Sessions (Rules), Bill Shuster (Transportation and Infrastructure), and Lamar Smith (Science, Space and Technology).

“We stand on the precipice of one of the most important elections of our lifetime. This great nation cannot endure eight more years of Democrat-control of the White House,” the chairmen wrote in a statement of their endorsement. “It cannot afford to put Democrats in charge of Congress. It is paramount that we coalesce around the Republican nominee, Mr. Donald J. Trump, and maintain control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.” The statement went on:

Any other outcome is a danger to economic growth, puts our national security in peril, enshrines ObamaCare as the law of the land, entraps Americans in a cycle of poverty and dependence, and undermines our constitutional republic.

There is a path to winning in November, and it comes through unity. To solidify this partnership, we endorse Mr. Trump as the Republican nominee for President and call upon all Americans to support him.

Trump responded to the endorsement, saying, “It is tremendous to be working with these leaders and their colleagues on winning solutions that will really move us forward. A strong House Republican Majority is imperative to fixing the problems facing America and making our country better and stronger than ever before.”

The endorsement comes after Trump met with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, along with other GOP leaders, on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Trump has history of questionable conduct with women — report

May 15, 2016

Trump has history of questionable conduct with women — report NY Times interviews over 50 people, male and female, to reveal pattern of often inappropriate behavior in private and professional settings

By Times of Israel staff May 14, 2016, 11:59 pm

Source: Trump has history of questionable conduct with women — report | The Times of Israel

A hit peace by NY times AND times of Israel .

Donald Trump speaking at a caucus night watch party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, Feb. 23, 2016. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images via JTA)

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for the US presidency, has a troubling history of questionable behavior around women in both private and professional settings, according to a new report.

An article in the New York Times published Saturday, based on more than 50 interviews with persons male and female who have interacted with the billionaire businessman socially or worked with him, reveals a pattern of often inappropriate behavior on the part of the presidential candidate.

 “Unwelcome romantic advances, unending commentary of the female form, a shrewd reliance on ambitious women and unsettling workplace conduct” seem to have been part and parcel of Trump’s behavior over the past four decades, according to the report.

The incidents in question occurred at Trump Tower, on construction sites, at parties, at his home or backstage at beauty pageants once he bought the Miss Universe Organization.

The profile in the Times also details his encouragement of some women in their career path, and his promotion of some to very senior positions within his businesses.

When asked by the Times about the unflattering incidents, the billionaire candidate either denied they took place or took issue with the details.

“A lot of things get made up over the years,” Trump told the Times. “I have always treated women with great respect.”

A high-level executive who worked for Trump for 12 years recalled the night he told her he wanted to promote her to oversee the construction on Trump Tower.

According to Barbara Res, she was taken to Trump’s home, where he told her he wanted her to be his “Donna Trump” on the project at a time where few women held such positions.

“He said: You’re a woman in a man’s world. And while men tend to be better than women, a good woman is better than 10 good men. He thought he was complimenting me,” Res told the Times.

In another incident, Res describes Trump’s apropos-of-nothing comment on women from southern California during a business meeting.

“They take care of their asses,” she recalled him saying.

Res also said that he commented on her weight gain at one point, telling her, “you like your candy.”

A Miss Universe winner told the Times that she felt bullied and humiliated by Trump after gaining weight following her victory.

Still others said Trump was genuinely interested in helping them.

“I think there are mischaracterizations about him,” Jill Martin, assistant counsel at the Trump Organization, told the Times. “For me, he’s made it a situation where I can really excel at my job and still devote the time necessary for my family.”

Another beauty pageant contestant said Trump followed through on promises to provide contacts for career advancements.

On and off the campaign trail, Trump has used crass and abusive language — “bimbo,” “dog,” “fat pig” and other epithets — to denigrate women he dislikes, including Fox News’s Megyn Kelly.

The twice-divorced billionaire, who was celebrated for decades as one of New York’s most sought-after bachelors, has also admitted to cheating on his first wife with the woman who became his second.