Posted tagged ‘President Elect Trump’

Why did Obama Shut Down a Successful Aerial Surveillance Program Along the U.S.-Mexican Border?

November 25, 2016

Why did Obama Shut Down a Successful Aerial Surveillance Program Along the U.S.-Mexican Border?, Front Page MagazineAri Lieberman, November 25, 2016

(Please see also, DHS shuts down aerial surveillance on border. — DM)

border_patrol_car_patroling_on_border

Operation Phalanx may have worked too well for the administration’s tastes.

President-elect Donald Trump has made the construction of physical barriers along the border with Mexico, immigration reform and the dissolution of sanctuary cities the cornerstone of his campaign but it appears that in its twilight weeks of office, the Obama administration is intent on making that lofty goal as difficult as possible. According to the government oversight group Watchdog.org, the Department of Homeland Security has recently and inexplicably shut down Operation Phalanx, an aerial surveillance program established in 2010 which aimed to interdict drug trafficking and illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexican border. 

Phalanx authorized the allocation of 1,200 soldiers and airmen from the U.S. Army’s National Guard to assist U.S. customs and border patrol agents along the border. The program also employed advanced UH-72 helicopters to supplement other aerial surveillance platforms.

The move to terminate the project is in line with the Obama administration’s lackadaisical approach to illegal immigration and serves to underscore attempts by the administration to make the transition more difficult for the President-elect. In February 2016, the Obama administration cut funding to Operation Phalanx by 50 percent even though the project had been fully funded by Congress and was by all accounts, demonstrably successful.

But therein lies the problem. Operation Phalanx may have been too successful for the administration’s tastes. According to Watchdog.org, in the Laredo sector alone, “Operation Phalanx accounted for 10,559 apprehensions and 4,007 ‘turnbacks’ from March 2012 to December 2015. Phalanx was credited with seizing 12,851 pounds of narcotics during the period.”

While the Obama administration authorized Operation Phalanx, one cannot discount the possibility that the establishment of Phalanx was designed to placate Congress rather than to address a serious border problem. Once realizing that the project was showing positive results and making a dent, albeit a miniscule one, on illegal activities on the border, the administration decided to terminate Phalanx.

Already, the DHS announcement to terminate Phalanx has been met with fierce bipartisan criticism. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, has promised to challenge the DHS action claiming that the project was “fully funded” for 2017. He plans to enlist the support of other congressional lawmakers including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Reps. Mike McCaul, R-San Antonio, and John Carter, R-Round Rock.

Led by their chief executive, there appears to be a deliberate and concerted effort on the part of most Democratic lawmakers to subvert any attempt to enforce the rule of law along the U.S.-Mexican border and remove sanctuary cities – the asinine practice of shielding undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement. The tragic case of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, murdered by a multiple deportee and illegal immigrant with a lengthy felony rap sheet underscores this point. Following her murder, congressional efforts to redress some of the most absurd and egregious practices adopted by sanctuary cities in shielding felonious illegals have been stymied by the administration’s allies.

Kate’s Law, a bill that would mandate minimum prison sentences for returning deportees and would revoke federal grants to cities that failed to comply with federal law in detaining illegals, failed to garner the requisite 60 Senate votes required to move the bill along for presidential approval. Even if it had garnered the requisite number, it is a virtual certainty that Obama would have vetoed the bill.

The termination of Operation Phalanx and subversion of Kate’s Law must be viewed in the wider context as part of a continuous and concerted effort on the part of the Obama administration to undermine the rule of law. Phalanx was showing results and therefore had to be stopped even though the requisite funds for the project had already been appropriated. Kate’s Law would have brought some order to disorder and was therefore viewed as dangerous by many Democratic lawmakers.

Any serious effort to implement immigration reform must begin with the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexican border. The U.S. can model its effort based on the experience of other nations that faced and rectified similar infiltration problems.

Israel has erected a sophisticated barrier along its border with Egypt to thwart the flow of illegal African infiltrators and drug smugglers. A similar barrier was erected in central Israel to prevent Arab terrorist infiltration. Utilizing a network of concrete walls, razor wire, watchtowers, electrified fencing, electronic sensors and other forms of sophisticated surveillance equipment, the Israelis have managed to completely thwart illegal infiltration and have frustrated efforts by Palestinian terrorists to launch attacks.

The 2,000 mile stretch of border between the U.S. and Mexico is dangerously vulnerable and eight years of deliberate neglect by the Obama administration has not helped matters. If Trump is serious about addressing this clear and present danger – and it appears that he is – he should look to Israel for some advice.

Trump’s Appointments Continue to Impress

November 25, 2016

Trump’s Appointments Continue to Impress, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, November 24, 2016

(As to Dr. Carson

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night, Carson confirmed that Trump has offered him a position in his cabinet, and HUD is “one of the offers that’s on the table.” When asked if he knows anything about housing policy, Carson told Neil Cavuto: “I know that I grew up in the inner city and have spent a lot of time there, have dealt with a lot of patients from that area, and recognize that we cannot have a strong nation if we have weak inner cities.”

— DM

If, as is often said, personnel is policy, the Trump administration may prove more impressive than many conservatives expected. His nominations so far have been outstanding. The latest is his choice of Betsy DeVos to head the Department of Education. DeVos is a school choice activist who puts the interests of children first–especially inner-city children–rather than the interests of teachers’ unions. The New York Times, intending to express outrage at her selection, came up with this heartwarming headline: “Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Education Pick, Has Steered Money From Public Schools.”

It was reported that Trump has offered the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to Dr. Ben Carson. It now appears that the offer has been neither made nor accepted, but I hope it comes to pass. While he is not an experienced administrator, Carson is respected by just about everyone, and is ideally positioned to dismantle the left-wing social engineering that President Obama’s HUD has engaged in. Once again, we turn to the New York Times to explain why Carson would be an excellent choice: “How Ben Carson at Housing Could Undo a Desegregation Effort.” The “desegregation effort” in question is the Obama administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing power grab, which we have written about many times. Carson is just the man to put AFFH out of its misery.

Let’s hope that Trump’s personnel winning streak continues.

The agony of watching the transition

November 25, 2016

The agony of watching the transition, Washington TimesWesley Pruden, November 24, 2016

transitionSen. Jeff Sessions (Associated Press)

The press is in a pout just now because Donald Trump is not supplying a new Cabinet officer on demand. He’s taking his time choosing his team, and this is reported as if a national tragedy. Time magazine calls the Trump transition “chaotic,” and The New York Times asserts that the Donald’s team is plagued by “discord” and stalled in “disarray.” A reporter at Politico, the political daily, says the transition team is having “a knife fight,” which demonstrates mostly that the reporter has never been to a knife fight, and is probably covering his first transition.

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

What we used to call “the press,” before the newspapers aspired to be part of the professional class with its inflated titles and airs, is never happy. Nor should it be. The press is a demanding and cranky lot by definition, and now they’re something called “the media.” Marshall McLuhan, who invented the concept if not the word, must never be forgiven.

This invited television, which is an entertainment medium, to share a definition with newspapers, and soon newspapermen (including women) wanted to be seen as well as heard, and there went the neighborhood. Megyn Kelly is Hollywood gorgeous, but she wouldn’t be happy working on a newspaper where nobody could see her.

The press is in a pout just now because Donald Trump is not supplying a new Cabinet officer on demand. He’s taking his time choosing his team, and this is reported as if a national tragedy. Time magazine calls the Trump transition “chaotic,” and The New York Times asserts that the Donald’s team is plagued by “discord” and stalled in “disarray.” A reporter at Politico, the political daily, says the transition team is having “a knife fight,” which demonstrates mostly that the reporter has never been to a knife fight, and is probably covering his first transition.

“The president-elect will be announcing specific Cabinet positions,” says Jason Miller, a spokesman for the transition, “as well as key position staff, when those decisions are made. The focus of the administration is putting together the best team. It is not an arbitrary timetable. It’s about getting it right.”

The wiseheads in the Trump camp understand that the press/media will never think he’s “getting it right.” The notabilities of press and the twinkles of the tube should be pleased with a slow pace that spreads their misery. A wise man awaiting the hangman never complains if he can’t remember where he put the rope.

But the pace this time is not unusually slow, and it’s faster than in many incoming administrations. George W. Bush, bedeviled by all those hanging chads, did not name his first Cabinet officer until early December. President Obama was eager to get moving to deal with the financial crisis in 2008, but nevertheless did not make his first Cabinet appointment, the Treasury secretary, until Nov. 24. The press was so busy swooning it never noticed. Donald Trump beat that date with four such appointments.

Mr. Obama did not reveal his next appointments, secretary of State, attorney general and director of homeland security until Dec. 1. By that time, Richard Nixon had named his entire Cabinet, and see where that got us.

The chattering about discord, disarray and knife fights is neither unprecedented nor unexpected. Chattering is what magpies do, and December announcements are the rule not the exception. The smarter magpies might usefully aim their hysteria elsewhere.

David Axelrod, a senior adviser in the early Obama administration, says he has “lots of reasons” to be concerned about a Trump administration but the pace of announcements isn’t one of them. “We hadn’t made any major announcements at this point in 2008,” he says, “and I don’t remember being criticized for it.”

But criticizing is what Washington does well, and sometimes it’s all that Washington does well. Criticisms are the fleas that come with the dog. Changing governments is a big job, and nowhere as big as in the United States. Ronald Reagan’s transition was marked by fits and starts. Bill Clinton’s path was not strewn with rose petals (though he was always on the scout for rosebuds), and John F. Kennedy’s transition to Camelot was difficult, particularly after he appointed his brother Robert as the U.S. attorney general.

The pace of appointments may be giving the Donald’s critics a headache now, and the headache will become a bellyache when all appointments are made, and the Democrats have chosen the subject of the execution. That might be Jeff Sessions, the attorney general-nominee. He’s white and a Southerner, and the hangman only needs to find the third strike.

The transition to president of the United States is never easy because it’s unique. There’s nothing remotely like the presidency; nothing can prepare man or woman for it. Harry Truman said on assuming the office in the final days of World War II that he felt like “the sun, the moon and the stars fell on me.”

He never expected the star shower, and apparently never did Donald Trump. Unlike some other presidents, he wouldn’t talk about a transition during the campaign. “I don’t want to talk about this,” he told his inner circle. “I don’t want to jinx this.”

With the jinx defeated, he can get on with choosing his side. Life will go on. Our friends on the left will survive, too.

Cartoons of the Day

November 24, 2016

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

altright

 

weird

 

work

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

polled1

 

Via Hope and Change Cartoons

axe-not-what-your-country-can-do-for-you-1

 

h/t Vermont Loon Watch

split1

 

losers

 

bully

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

media-chooses

 

leadership-1

 

Amanpour on Trump: Media Faces an ‘Existential Crisis’ — Hints of Journalists in Cages

November 24, 2016

Amanpour on Trump: Media Faces an ‘Existential Crisis’ — Hints of Journalists in CagesTrent Baker, November 24, 2016

(Please watch the video. Ms. Amanpour calls upon the media to speak “truth to power.” Unfortunately, her version of “truth” appears to be left-wing opinion. Please see also, RIGHT ANGLE: “Like a F—ing Firing Squad” — DM)

 

Tuesday, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour delivered a speech at a Committee to Protect Journalists event.

In her speech, Amanpour discussed the state of the media with President-Elect Donald Trump set to take over the White House in 2017.

The CNN International host likened Trump to authoritarians around the world for demonizing the media.

“I was chilled when the first tweet after the election was about ‘professional protesters incited by the media.’” Amanpour stated. “Now, he walked back the bit about the protesters, but not the bit about the media.

“That is how it goes with authoritarians around the world like Sisi, like Erdoğan, like Putin, like the Ayatollahs, like Duterte in the Philipines and all of those people,” she added.

 Later, Amanpour said the media faces an “existential crisis” and could “end up in handcuffs, in cages, in kangaroo courts [and] prisons.”

“First the media is accused of inciting, then sympathizing, then associating – and then suddenly they find themselves accused of being full-fledged terrorists and subversives. Then they end up in handcuffs, in cages, in kangaroo courts, in prisons – and then who knows what? We have stand up together because divided we will fall,” Amanpour said.

“I feel that right now we face an existential crisis, a real threat to the very relevance and usefulness of our profession,” she continued. “Now, more than ever, I genuinely believe that we need to recommit to real reporting across a real nation, a real world in which journalism and democracy are in mortal peril, including by foreign powers like Russia who pay to churn out and to place these false news articles, these lies in many of our press; they hack into democratic systems, not just here as they’re accused of, but also now allegedly in crucial democratic experiences that are going on in Germany and France and elsewhere in Europe.”

A Thanksgiving Message from President-Elect Donald J. Trump

November 24, 2016

A Thanksgiving Message from President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Transition 2017 via YouTube, November 23, 2016

Trump Actually Treating Media Better Than They Deserve

November 24, 2016

Trump Actually Treating Media Better Than They Deserve, PJ MediaSTEPHEN KRUISER, November 23, 2016

trumpandmediaU.S. President elect Donald Trump reacts to a crowd gathered in the lobby of the New York Times building after a meeting in New York, U.S., November 22, 2016. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson – RTSSUB4

If the only thing Trump accomplishes in office is giving the GOP some lessons in handling the derelict, irresponsible MSM then he will have given the party a lasting gift that will reap rewards for it far into the future.

If some feelings are hurt along the way, they probably needed to be.

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

Thanksgiving week started off with some wonderful drama between President-elect Trump and various members of the mainstream media. The latter have spent eight years more or less on vacation. All they’ve really done since January 20th, 2009, is slightly modify White House press releases then release them as “news.” MSNBC didn’t even do that, opting instead for simply repeating administration talking points verbatim every night.

Two weeks ago, the laziness of the narrative mongers was fully exposed. Rather than pay attention to what was going on around them throughout the campaign, they clung harder to a story that they’d written and, just like in every Dan Brown novel, they didn’t have much of an ending planned. In fact, they were so invested in that story that it never occurred to them that their reality would be uncomfortable should their fairy tale ending not pan out.

Let me insert a disclaimer here for the perpetually obtuse: I am in no way advocating for government power over the press. A free and responsible press is essential in this country. Unfortunately, the responsibility train left the station long ago.

The week began with Trump meeting an array of television news hacks who were then treated to something they’ve never experienced before: an incoming Republican president who didn’t have a “bygones be bygones” switch.

It had all the trappings of a high-level rapprochement: President-elect Donald J. Trump, now the nation’s press critic in chief, inviting the leading anchors and executives of television news to join him on Monday for a private meeting of minds.On-air stars like Lester Holt, Charlie Rose, George Stephanopoulos and Wolf Blitzer headed to Trump Tower for the off-the-record gathering, typically the kind of event where journalists and politicians clear the air after a hard-fought campaign.

Instead, the president-elect delivered a defiant message: You got it all wrong.

Mr. Trump, whose antagonism toward the news media was unusual even for a modern presidential candidate, described the television networks as dishonest in their reporting and shortsighted in missing the signs of his upset victory. He criticized some in the room by name, including CNN’s president, Jeffrey A. Zucker, according to multiple people briefed on the meeting who were granted anonymity to describe confidential discussions.

The First Amendment doesn’t offer freedom from criticism, but you wouldn’t have known that from the reactions yesterday.

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told the Post.

“It was like a f−−−ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter.

“Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said.

“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing-down,” the source added.

A second source confirmed the fireworks.

“The meeting took place in a big boardroom and there were about 30 or 40 people, including the big news anchors from all the networks,” the other source said.

“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said.

“Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about an NBC female correspondent who got it wrong, then he referred to a horrible network correspondent who cried when Hillary lost who hosted a debate — which was Martha Raddatz, who was also in the room.”

If the “source” is accurate in recounting what Trump says then I do see a real problem…with anyone who thinks he was out of line.

Katy Tur was especially awful, so if Trump was referring to her he wasn’t being mean, he was being honest. Most of her reporting was about how Trump’s rally crowds and the campaign were affecting the reporters. It was one one of the most tedious and prolonged cases of journalistic navel gazing in history, if not the longest. On Election Night, Tur was visibly distraught and did little more than repeat the list of reasons that the media thought people shouldn’t vote for Trump every time she was on air. That was annoying earlier in the evening, and maddening in the hours after the election had been called. It seemed that she thought she could undo the results if she just whined enough. She was filled with angst-ridden complaints. She wasn’t reporting at all.

That’s just one example. I could fill a book with what I watched on Election Night alone.

Trump moved on to the print media Tuesday, scheduling a meeting with The New York Times. Before the meeting, something happened that he didn’t like and he called it off, announcing it on Twitter in very Trumpian fashion:

I cancelled today’s meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice

He could have left it at that and let his people get to work on ironing things out, but he’s still the same guy from the campaign, so he got in a couple more digs.

Perhaps a new meeting will be set up with the @nytimes. In the meantime they continue to cover me inaccurately and with a nasty tone!

The failing @nytimes just announced that complaints about them are at a 15 year high. I can fully understand that – but why announce?

Surely the venerable Gray Lady wouldn’t let the president-elect push them around, right?

The meeting with the @nytimes is back on at 12:30 today. Look forward to it!

Trump then gave the Times a long interview and if he was rough on them too they didn’t report about it.

What all of this means is that the media’s days of operating in a biased, knee-capping fashion towards a Republican president with impunity are over, at least while Donald Trump is that Republican. Hopefully, the GOP will learn some lessons along the way and start calling out the media when they are lying. Prior to Trump the only Republican who consistently rejected false premises and biased questions was Newt Gingrich. The rest of the GOP pretended to be above the fray, not willing to engage hostile adversaries, which is precisely what most of the press who cover the White House and Capitol Hill are.

Trump got into the fray and it ruffled the delicate sensibilities of people on both sides who were used to the game being played a certain way. That game’s rules don’t favor Republicans though, and it was well past the time when the party needed a candidate who didn’t play by them.

The media complaints about being called out by the president-elect, as well as the implication that it’s unprecedented are just more disingenuous behavior. If anyone out there has a recent total of the number of times President Obama has singled out Fox News I’d like to have it, as I lost count years ago. When he isn’t complaining about them, he’s leveling an accusatory gaze at talk radio. Here he is in a post-election interview with The New Yorker reminiscing about his Senate win and presidential campaign in ’08:

“People didn’t see me coming,” Obama said as we drove through the night. “In southern Illinois, in those counties I won, I was at V.F.W.s and fish fries hearing people’s stories and talking to folks, so that they knew me. They weren’t getting me through Fox or Rush Limbaugh or Breitbart or RedState.“In ’08, they saw me coming, but I was a guy named Barack Hussein Obama coming up against the Clinton machine, so no way! So they weren’t focussed on me, and I established a connection. Then came the stuff: Ayers and Reverend Wright and all the rest. What I’m suggesting is that the lens through which people understand politics and politicians is extraordinarily powerful. And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter. You attract attention, rouse emotions, and then move on. You can surf those emotions. I’ve said it before, but if I watched Fox I wouldn’t vote for me!”

Grudge list much, Mr. President?

The fears of heavy-handed government involvement in the press are laughable too, given that the press got into bed with the Democrat side of government years ago, and has practically operated as a de facto wing of the White House Office of Communications for the past eight years.

Trump’s social media habits scare them the most, because as we saw with the New York Times meeting, he can take his case directly to the public. That connection has a lot of people freaked out because it seriously upsets the old order. No longer is everything filtered through the MSM. I’ve been saying since the beginning of the campaign that political science students will be studying Trump’s use of social media in this election for years to come.

Republicans who were uncomfortable with Trump’s rough style during the campaign and longed for Mitt Romney’s class and decency seemed to have forgotten that Romney’s fortunes turned on a dime because Candy Crowley ran interference for President Obama during a debate, fact-checking something Romney had asserted. One small problem, her fact-check was a lie. He essentially lost the election to a CNN reporter.

But, hey, above the fray and whatnot, right?

If the only thing Trump accomplishes in office is giving the GOP some lessons in handling the derelict, irresponsible MSM then he will have given the party a lasting gift that will reap rewards for it far into the future.

If some feelings are hurt along the way, they probably needed to be.

The Truth About John Bolton, The Iraq War and WMD Diplomacy

November 23, 2016

The Truth About John Bolton, The Iraq War and WMD Diplomacy, Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz, November 23, 2016

bolton1

Source: Breitbart News Network

You’re probably heard the criticism of Ambassador John Bolton by the left that he would not be a good choice to be the next Secretary of State because Bolton was an architect of the Iraq War and a hawk who has little use for diplomacy.

This is completely false. The truth is that Bolton was frozen out of Iraq War planning. This criticism also ignores Bolton’s successful diplomacy as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security to pressure rogue states to comply with WMD treaties and his work as UN ambassador to take strong and meaningful action in the UN Security Council against WMD proliferation and terrorism.

The record shows John Bolton had little to do with promoting the Iraq war or war planning. Check out the State Department’s archive page of Bolton’s speeches, op-eds in 2002 and early 2003. You won’t find anything calling for military action against Iraq.

Bolton was not involved in any decision-making or planning for the Iraq War because Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage froze him out. As Bolton’s chief of staff, I witnessed this first hand. I remember well how State Department offices were told by Powell’s and Armitage’s staffs not to share any information with Bolton and his staff about Iraq war planning.

Looking back on this, Bolton believes Powell did him a favor. He says on pages 165-166 of his 2007 book Surrender is Not an Option:

I played no significant decision-making role on Iraq policy, because Powell and Armitage largely excluded me from these issues, no doubt fearing that my views would be similar to Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s and not their own.  It was the greatest favor Powell ever did for me, utterly unintentionally, to be sure, and my Iraq-related activities were only at the margins of the central decisions.

I believe Bolton’s liberal critics are falsely portraying Bolton as an architect of the Iraq War for two reasons.

First, they want to obscure his successful diplomatic efforts to address cheating on WMD treaties by rogue states. Bolton did this by calling out major violators of treaties to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention.

 Bolton also negotiated the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a global effort now composed of 103 countries to stop and interdict shipments of WMD technology to rogue states. PSI’s most important success occurred in September 2003 when it led to the inspection of a ship transporting nuclear technology to Libya. This interdiction was a major reason why Libyan leader Muammar Qadaffi decided to give up his WMD programs.

And second, after holding three confirmed foreign policy positions and a reputation for toughness, John Bolton is the last person the foreign policy establishment wants to see leading the State Department. They know he has an intimate knowledge of the State bureaucracy and will exercise the leadership to ensure it implements the president’s policies. The foreign policy establishment is only too aware that no one is better qualified to drain the swamp at State than John Bolton.

In short, the Iraq War architect argument that Bolton’s opponents are using against him is a ruse intended to play on Mr. Trump’s opposition to the Iraq War. I am confident that as President-elect Donald Trump and his team look at John Bolton’s entire record, they will see a man committed to making America safe again with a sophisticated understanding of national security who knows how to be tough and how to use diplomacy.  They also will find someone who will work hard and loyally to bring the Trump revolution to the State Department and the world.

Humor | Liberals are Losing Their Minds

November 23, 2016

Liberals are Losing Their Minds, Power LineSteven Hayward, November 23, 2016

(I have two problems with the headline. 1. They are not “liberals” (at least in the old-fashioned sense of the word) and 2. “Losing their minds” assumes a fact not in evidence. –DM)

A couple days ago I wandered into the Berkeley Bowl Market, which is where upscale hippiedom of Berkeley shops for its fair-trade kale and such. Oh my! The experience does not disappoint. The people watching was even better than the Whole Foods in Boulder, which was the size of a Home Depot. One of these days I’ll take a hidden video camera for some candid shots. Maybe I’ll wear a “Make America Great Again” cap just to watch people clear out of the unsafe food space faster than a botulism scare.

Over at The Federalist, David Marcus relates the amazing story of what happened at a crunchy food co-op in Brooklyn when “Sweet Home Alabama” came on the store’s background music rotation:

After getting our Brazilian Arabica ground for drip (I know, I should really use a French Press), Libby and I walked towards the organic maple syrup. That’s when it started. I suppose there had been music playing in the store, but I hadn’t noticed until a familiar guitar lick pierced the air and a soft voice said, “Turn it up.”

Libby and I both stopped and looked at each other. “Seriously?” said my wife, a very disappointed Clinton supporter. She started gripping her soft Tomme Crayeuse a little too hard. By the time Ronnie Van Zant’s drawl started in with “Big wheels keep on turnin’,” everyone in the store was standing in shock. Brows were furrowed, people mumbled to each other. The song seemed to get louder as one of those New York moments happened, when everyone was thinking the exact the same thing.

A woman in her fifties, wearing a Love Trump Hates button, turned to her Brooklyn-bearded husband and said loudly, “This is unbelievable!” She found the nearest store clerk, a young woman in a green apron who was staring up at the ceiling, looking for the invisible speakers blaring this message from the other America. “This is so inappropriate,” the woman said. “Can we turn this off?”

Just wait until Trump has “Dueling Banjos” played at his inauguration.

The Progressive Disintegration

November 23, 2016

The Progressive Disintegration, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, November 23, 2016

loosers

A month ago, progressives were having a conniption fit over Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the election. So of course, now that Trump has won, they are rioting, vandalizing, staging “cry-ins,” ditching class, group-hugging, tweeting threats, calling names, seeking counseling, and doing everything in their power to make sure that their party declines even further. If this behavior continues, and if––a big “if” –– Trump governs the way he promised, we may be witnessing the start of the progressive disintegration.

Start with the melting snowflake millennials, all those “cocksure women and hensure men,” as D.H. Lawrence once described feminists of both sexes. These layabouts have become used to throwing tantrums whenever they don’t like something or they feel “unsafe.” Most of them are spoiled brats, the pampered detritus of the middle class. But don’t forget the Alinskyite activists who manipulate these juveniles and bus them in on George Soros’ dime. These two-bit Leninists are adept at using “useful idiots” in order to further their aim of destroying America’s political and social order. They’re skilled at manipulating empty slogans like “income inequality,” “fair share,” “social justice,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” and all the other bumper-sticker bromides in order to consolidate and increase their power and influence.

If the delicate millennial Eloi were really interested in reforming their team instead of indulging phony moral exhibitionism, they would start with the Democrat party. No true leftist would have sat still for the nomination of a candidate so obviously part of the fat-cat ruling class as Hillary Clinton. (And no, he wouldn’t be happy with Bernie Sanders either, a bumbling blowhard who thinks imitating Sweden’s “social democracy” ––which means an overregulated capitalism leavened with over-generous social welfare benefits––is somehow an epochal revolutionary change.) It was electoral malfeasance to choose a geriatric insider and establishment plutocrat with no charisma and a long record of abusing her privilege and power. So, kiddies, go protest against the DNC and Barack Obama. They’re the reason the Republican party is the strongest it’s been since 1928.

Next, look at yourselves. As Piers Morgan––no conservative he––said recently, “The tragic truth is that America’s millennials are a bunch of phone-addicted, selfie-obsessed, hashtagging, snapchatting, kale-munching, twerking, lazy, whining, ill-informed, politically correct, cossetted narcissists who find absolutely everything mortally offensive and believe there are 165 ways to sexually identify.” It follows that your politics are merely symbolic, expressions of your inflated self-regard, privileged life-style, and arrogant pretensions to sophistication and intelligence. Unsurprisingly, as Morgan points out, according to the National Institutes of Health, 40% of you think you should be promoted every two years despite performance, 77% of you can’t name a senator from your home state, and 80% of you think you’ll be richer than your parents, even as you pile up student debt earning junk “studies” degrees utterly useless for employment in the real world.

In contrast to symbolic politics, real politics is grubby hard work: knocking on doors, registering voters, and not just preaching to the choir, but converting new voters. Follow Obama’s advice to Republicans three years ago: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election” (HT Cal Thomas). By the way, you won’t win many elections by demonizing nearly half of voters as ignorant, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and cisgendered “irredeemable deplorables.”

More important, you need to vote. Only half of your 24-million-strong cohort voted in this election. You also need to understand that not everybody between the ages of 18-29 thinks exactly like you. Thirty-seven percent of millennials voted for Donald Trump. Instead of crying and vandalizing and screaming question-begging epithets, you should figure out how to talk to your fellow millennials and make persuasive, fact-based arguments based on coherent principles. But of course, if you could do that, you wouldn’t be progressives.

Then there are the Dems. They long ago embraced a balkanizing identity politics based mainly on demonizing those white voters who pulled the lever for Trump. They pander incessantly to race hucksters and rich women and sleek “Hispanics,” most of whom never cut grapes or even speak Spanish. They embrace counter-factual nonsense like “white privilege,” when they of all people should know that the color of privilege in America is the currency shade of green. They and their wholly owned subsidiaries, the mainstream media and the educational industry, enforce a preposterous political correctness that is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt. They trade in group-identities often based on stereotypes and generalizations that old-school Jim Crow segregationists relied on. The blatant hypocrisy of a political correctness that never protects Christians, poor whites, or conservatives finally angered enough voters to set aside their distaste for Trump and put him in office.

Yet despite that rebuke, after the election the Democrat elite indulged the same old nonsense. The tried to play the “sexist” card to explain Hillary’s defeat, posited a preposterous “whitelash” of racists, tarred the careerist James Comey as a Republican mole, whined about the Electoral College while trying to suborn Electors, conjured up sinister Klansmen and alt-right storm-troopers, insulted 49 million Americans as haters, and prophesized an imminent fascist coup engineered by Trump’s goose-stepping Goebbels, Steve Bannon. Rather than come up with new ideas, they’re doubling-down on the stale paradigm that demography guarantees them a permanent coalition comprising various identity-groups united by the promise of more set-asides and wealth redistribution, and bicoastal plutocrats who compensate for their privilege by catering to the minority masses they make sure never enter their gated compounds except to make the beds and mow the lawn. They don’t consider that Trump’s victory could make that plan obsolete if he follows through on his promise to tighten up on immigration.

Finally, instead of rethinking their exploded economic myths and abandoning a divisive identity politics, many Dems want to keep steaming full speed ahead toward the next electoral iceberg. Look at the two candidates touted as replacements for the tarnished DNC interim chair Donna Brazile. Howard “Screaming” Dean, erstwhile presidential candidate and governor of a state with fewer people than Fresno County, is a tax-and-spend, “fair share,” regulation-happy, identity politics tribune and radical egalitarian redistributionist of the kind whose policies have given us sluggish growth, job-killing regulations, and astronomical debt. The other choice is Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a zealous Muslim convert by way of the ultra-racist Nation of Islam. He is tainted with anti-Semitism, apologetics for Iran and terrorists like Hamas, virulent hatred of Israel, wacky 9-11 conspiracy theories, and the usual progressive blame-America-first foreign policy and magical-thinking economics. No surprise that he has been endorsed by the Jacobin Cherokee Elizabeth Warren, and ex-Senator Harry Reid, Obama’s legislative Luca Brasi.

The few sane Democrats counseling a change of course are unlikely to halt the self-destruction of so many failed progressive gods. Only Trump can prevent that “consummation devoutly to be wished” by failing to keep his campaign promises.