Posted tagged ‘President Elect Trump’

Trump Says He’s ‘A Smart Person,’ Doesn’t Need Daily Intelligence Briefings

December 12, 2016

Trump Says He’s ‘A Smart Person,’ Doesn’t Need Daily Intelligence Briefings, PJ MediaWalter Hudson, December 11, 2012

trump-primaries-sized-770x415xt

President-elect Donald Trump continues to defy convention and ruffle institutional feathers. In a wide-ranging interview with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Trump indicated he will delegate daily intelligence briefings to subordinates. From the Daily Mail:

“I get it when I need it,” [Trump] said on Fox News of the top-secret briefings sessions, adding that he’s leaving it up to the briefers to decide when a development represents a “change” big enough to notify him.

“I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” Trump said.

Read in excerpt like that, Trump’s remarks may come across as arrogant. He presumes that he will be in office for two terms, touts his own intellect, and downplays the importance of a critical presidential role.

However, when viewed in context [below], Trump’s position proves much less provocative. His “smart person” comment comes off less as a reference to some exclusive ability, and more like the standard capacity most of us have to remember something when first told. He could have just as easily said, “I’m not an idiot. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words.”

Trump went on to note that his generals and Vice President-elect Mike Pence will receive routine daily briefings, presumably including the redundancies he seeks to avoid. This is consistent with his articulated tendency to delegate tasks to “the best people.”

Trump also addressed bipartisan concerns regarding Russia’s influence in the election.

“It’s ridiculous,” Trump said of the CIA’s assessment [that that Russia tried to interfere with the presidential election].

[…]

Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, shrugged off allegations that Russia helped Trump win.

He said: “The Russians didn’t tell Clinton to ignore Wisconsin and Michigan.”

The Democratic candidate was expected to win in these two states but they went to Trump instead.

“She lost the election because her ideas were bad. She didn’t fit the electorate. She ignored states that she shouldn’t have and Donald Trump was the change agent,” Priebus said on ABC’s ‘This Week’.

Priebus may be overstating the case when he says the election results “had nothing to do with the Russians.” But those claiming Russia’s influence was decisive likewise overstate their case.

It remains unclear what actionable conclusions could emerge from investigations into suspected Russian hacking. Indeed, given the likely role Hillary Clinton’s private email server played in any such hacking, Democrats might be wise to let the issue go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ND8IMjwxes

Michelle Malkin DESTROYS The World’s Foremost FAKE NEWS Provider Hillary Clinton 12/10/16

December 10, 2016

Michelle Malkin DESTROYS The World’s Foremost FAKE NEWS Provider Hillary Clinton 12/10/16, Fox News via YouTube, December 10, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKa1CSlbYVs

The Coming Sanctuary Cities Crackdown

December 9, 2016

The Coming Sanctuary Cities Crackdown, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, December 9, 2016

boschf

Chicago is one of the best places to live in America if you’re one of the millions of illegal aliens present in the country — and free-spending, lawbreaking Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying his best to keep it that way.

Emanuel (D), who used to be a congressman and then President Obama’s chief of staff, dropped by Trump Tower in New York on Wednesday to urge President-elect Donald Trump to abandon his campaign promise to crack down on sanctuary cities.

“I also spoke out strongly about what it means to be a sanctuary city who will support and secure the people who are here, like my grandfather who came to the city of Chicago as a 13-year old 100 years ago,” said Emanuel who actually has no real bargaining power in the equation because he’s on the wrong side of the law.

“Chicago was a sanctuary city for my grandfather. His grandson today is the mayor of this city, which is a testament to the strength of the values and ideals of America.”

Emanuel, of course, is leaving out the values that make Americans inclined to support the rule of law and therefore oppose illegal entry and visa-overstaying by foreigners.

Emanuel is a strident, in-your-face supporter of the sanctuary city movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans. Cheered on by the Left, sanctuary cities hinder immigration enforcement and shield illegal aliens from federal officials as a matter of policy. They ignore immigration detainer forms which ask them to retain illegals in their custody after they would otherwise release them so Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can take custody of them.

These sanctuary cities really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States. Cities are creatures of the states in which they reside and under the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution the U.S. government is required to make sure that states maintain a “Republican Form of Government.” (The same clause also requires the U.S. to “protect each of them [i.e. the states] against Invasion[.]” Perhaps Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions could have his staff look into invoking the “Invasion” portion of the clause.)

These sanctuary cities may as well be flying the Confederate battle flag at city hall in their modern-day campaign of massive resistance against federal immigration law.

Bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Confederates who resisted federal authority and declared war on the United States 155 years ago, or the neo-Confederates in Southern states who resisted federal authority during the civil rights era, Democratic lawmakers and left-wing activists have been working together for decades to create large pockets of immigration anarchy in the United States where the law cannot easily be enforced.

The three criteria for a republican form of government as described in the Guarantee Clause are popular rule, absence of a monarch, and the rule of law. Immigration is a federal responsibility and sanctuary city policies undermine legitimate federal authority and are contrary to the rule of law.

Moreover, actively interfering with immigration enforcement could constitute obstruction of justice and could violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act which contains provisions making it unlawful to “harbor” an illegal alien.

The federal government needs to start arresting local officials like Emanuel for blocking the enforcement of federal immigration law. Those who enable the lawlessness of sanctuary cities deserve to be behind bars.

There are hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions – including a few states – across the country that hinder the federal government’s immigration law enforcement efforts. Some left-wingers use the dreadful euphemism “civil liberties safe zones” to describe them. The phrase blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S.

The nation got to this point after decades of concerted collusion by radical George Soros-funded groups like the ACLU to get localities to pledge to frustrate or violate laws that protect U.S. national security. Leftist agitation has so intimidated Americans that many refuse to say the phrase illegal alien, preferring to go with undocumented immigrant or other politically correct terms less likely to generate offense.

Of course left-wingers like Emanuel and New York mayor Bill de Blasio (D) and Los Angeles mayors Eric Garcetti (D), both of whom have also recently met with the president-elect, only support the “values and ideals” that advance their side’s perverted vision of what America should be.

Since the Nov. 8 election, many mayors across the country have thrown their lot in with street gangs, criminals, and those who burden the public purse by saying they will fight Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities.

Chicago’s Emanuel was one of the first big city mayors to promise resistance to Trump in the days following the election. Among other mayors vowing defiance are: Bill de Blasio of New York; Marty Walsh (D) of Boston; Jim Kenney (D) of Philadelphia; Muriel Bowser (D) of Washington, D.C.; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) of Baltimore; Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles; Ed Lee (D) of San Francisco; Libby Schaaf (D) of Oakland, Calif.; Tom Butt (D) of Richmond, Calif.; Ed Murray (D) of Seattle; Michael Hancock (D) of Denver; and Betsy Hodges (D) of Minneapolis.

Emanuel’s Chicago happens to be one of the five best places to live in America if you’re an illegal alien, according to Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The other four places on Dane’s list are: New Haven, Conn.; Montgomery County, Md.; all of California; and all of Washington State.

Because Chicago is a sanctuary city, “You won’t be asked any questions if you keep out of trouble but should you get jailed, no one will check your immigration status even when you’re in custody,” he writes. Mayor Emanuel will “do what he can locally to continue the president’s agenda of dismantling of immigration enforcement.”

Dane adds, “Of course you’ll be expected to vote for all these folks once they figure out a way to make you legal but you’ll get used to it, quid-pro-quo voting is a Chicago-style tradition.”

Chicago, well, actually the State of Illinois, showers taxpayer-funded benefits on its illegal alien residents. Immigration status is not checked when someone applies for supplement food assistance under the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) program, the All Kids medical care for children program, public K-12 education including free school lunch and breakfast programs, and under Head Start (preschool services).

An old 2007 study by FAIR found that illegals living in the Land of Lincoln cost state taxpayers “more than $3.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration,” which represents about $695 for every Illinois household headed by a U.S.-born resident.

Immigration status is not considered in the provision of emergency healthcare services, including end-stage kidney disease services, and for pregnancy care.

Among the top 25 counties in the U.S. with the highest illegal alien populations, just five don’t offer public healthcare programs for illegals.

Cook County, Ill., which includes Chicago, is one of the 20 counties on the list that does offer care. It has an estimated illegal alien population of 323,000, and 20,000 of them a year are treated under a county healthcare program. Additionally, states are allowed to extend Medicaid eligibility to illegal aliens, and 16 have created programs covering illegals.

Emanuel is so determined to fork over tax dollars to illegals that he’s moving forward with creating a municipal identification card to open government coffers to those who have no legal right to be in this country.

“Chicago is and has been a city that welcomes everyone, and an individual’s background should never be a barrier to participating in the economic, social or cultural life of Chicago,” Emanuel said in October. “With this program, we ensure that all Chicago residents have the identification they need to access vital services.”

Alderman Ameya Pawar (D) hailed the planned ID card because it will “provide our undocumented and homeless neighbors with the needed identification to access critical city services and cultural resources.”

Alderman Danny Solis (D) said the ID will help many Chicago residents. “All residents of Chicago, regardless of their immigration status, will feel safe and secure and [the card will] give residents access to services they need to contribute to our great city.”

In September, Emanuel and some aldermen proposed expanding the protections that Chicago provides illegal aliens. According to Ted Cox at DNAinfo, the “Welcoming City” ordinance “would outlaw verbal abuse aimed at undocumented immigrants based on their race or citizenship, as well as banning threats made against them to reveal their undocumented status to federal immigration authorities.”

Seemi Choudry, director of the Mayor’s Office of New Americans in Chicago, said the expanded protections are intended to “make the city safer and more attractive for immigrant communities” and protect their “respect and dignity.”

The other four cities on Dane’s list bend over backwards to accommodate illegal aliens.

In 2007 New Haven, Conn., beat Chicago to the punch, becoming the first place in America to offer ID cards to its residents “regardless of age or immigration status.” The ID “has embedded holograms so that no one can ever steal your identity,” Dane notes.

In Montgomery County, Md., Casa De Maryland case workers help illegals to find jobs and “an IRS-issued taxpayer identification number because, of course, you’re here illegally and not eligible for a real Social Security number.”

California rolls out the red carpet for illegal aliens which helps explain why close to a quarters of all illegals in the U.S. live there. The state spends $21.5 billion a year on illegal alien health care, education, welfare, other state benefits, and criminal justice. This works out to $2,438 for every California native-born household. And illegals get in-state tuition rates in what Dane calls “the Dream State for Illegal Aliens.”

Washington, he explains, “accepts Mexican Matrícula Consular ID cards as proof of identification,” unconcerned with FBI and Department of Justice warnings that the cards can be utilized by criminal and terrorists.

It’s hard to say exactly how much sanctuary jurisdictions like Chicago spend on illegals because they tend not to make such figures easily available.

But because of a landmark 2013 study by the Heritage Foundation, we know that across the country:

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.

Those figures were based on the calculation that “all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.” The aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households “equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.”

The Heritage report, which was vigorously attacked by the Left and by open-borders groups on the Right, explained that unlike lawful immigrants, illegal aliens do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare but they do take in government benefits and services. For example, children in illegal alien households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many illegals have U.S.-born children and they are eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And illegals use the roads, parks, sewage systems, police and fire protection in the communities where they live.

Although open-borders propaganda typically claims that illegal aliens are hardworking and industrious, among illegal alien households with children, 87 percent accept benefits from one or more welfare programs, compared to just 52 percent of native households. Many illegals are unemployable because they don’t have the skills needed for the jobs available.

But these sobering statistics are mere details to Rahm Emanuel and Bill de Blasio and all other big-city Democrats.

They need illegal aliens in order to stay electorally competitive (and mow their lawns and clean their swimming pools) so they’re desperately hoping President-elect Trump will throw them a lifeline by betraying his own supporters.

If Trump wants a second term in the Oval Office, he’ll tell Emanuel where to go.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka on Trump’s Cabinet: ‘After Eight Years of Pajama Boys, It’s Time for the Alpha Males’

December 9, 2016

Dr. Sebastian Gorka on Trump’s Cabinet: ‘After Eight Years of Pajama Boys, It’s Time for the Alpha Males’, BreitbartJohn Hayward. December 9, 2016

general-james-mad-dog-mattis-ap-640x480AP

Breitbart News National Security editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily to talk about the final act of the secretary of state drama, beginning with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s idea of working with former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as a “dynamic duo” at the State Department.

Dr. Gorka said he has heard the idea of Bolton serving as Rohrabacher’s deputy secretary of state “floated by people who were involved with the Reagan administration, the pre-neocon establishment that so many people miss today.”

“So it’s not an isolated incident, and it’s a very interesting offer,” Gorka said. “I have no idea if the people on the 26th floor in Trump Tower are responding to it, but it’s intriguing.”

He thought some of the drama over the prolonged secretary of state selection process was a matter of “pushback” against Mitt Romney, when it seemed likely he would get the nod, but also due to “a realization that outside of the vice president, this is the most visible embodiment or representation of a presidency, the position of most senior diplomat.”

“As a result, I think they’ve come to the realization in Trump Tower there’s really no hurry,” he said. “If you compare the choice of principals, of cabinet members, chronologically to prior transition teams, the Trump transition team has done very, very well. They’re putting a lot of people in place much faster than Reagan or even Nixon did. So they’ve realized this is a really important one; let’s get it right. Who do we want to be the face of the administration outward to the rest of the world? And as a result, they just slightly enlarged the decision tree with some additional candidates. I, for one, am very glad they’ve done so.”

Gorka agreed with Kassam that the hand-wringing over Trump having too many generals in his cabinet was “a bunch of baloney.”

“I’d like to recognize the fact that after eight years of Pajama Boys, it’s time for the alpha males to come back,” he added. “How appropriate that we’ve got three Marines from the same division, legendary figures in uniform, to represent three of the key posts in the new administration! The fact is, having met Donald Trump a long time ago, and talking about national security issues, one of the first things that was clear to me from this businessman, this very special businessman, is that he understands we are at war, Raheem. He gets it. And he wants to win that war. He knows he’s not going to do it with limp-wristed Pajama Boys. Who better than a bunch of legendary Devil Dogs to do it? So yeah, it’s baloney, and it’s very cool in my opinion.”

Kassam turned to a discussion posted at The Gorka Briefing, in which Dr. Gorka argued that “Europe is collapsing.”

“I think it’s patently obvious that the Trump Train was the result, in part, a reflection of, the general rejection of centralized federative bureaucracy, and as a result, we have Brexit foreshadow the future of what used to be called Project Europe,” Gorka elucidated. “And the fact is, people are waking up. They’re rejecting faceless bureaucracy. We see it all across the continent. Brexit isn’t a uniquely British phenomena. As a result, we will see more and more people say, ‘Enough is enough. We want national sovereignty. We want national security most important of all.’ And as a result, I think Project Europe is on the ropes.”

Kassam countered that Europe is not the same thing as the European Union, and asked, “If the European Union collapses, does that necessarily mean that Europe, constituted of its nation-states, goes down with it – or will it actually be the reverse? Will it be a European resurgence if this happens?”

“It really depends upon all those politicians you mentioned, and whether their successors listen to the people,” Gorka replied. “Let’s just address this word ‘populism.’ A lot of people, that leaves a bad taste in their mouths. How about we talk about the resurgence ofdemocracy? I’ve got a funny accent now, but I’m an American. Let me tell you, 1776 could be described as virulent populism, and you know what? I like it. So the idea that the popular vote, the populist sentiment, is recalibrating politics so that its focus is on the sovereign issues of that community – if you don’t like that, you’re a globalist, and if people aren’t voting for you, tough luck.”

Kassam brought up the growing criticism of Saudi Arabia for financing proxy wars across the Middle East and radical mosques in Europe. He saluted British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson for speaking clearly on the issue, and asked, “Why do you think it’s so difficult for Number 10 Downing Street, and indeed your own State Department, to look Saudi Arabia in the eye and talk about these things?”

“I think it’s because we’ve forgotten, at least the last eight years here in America, how to do diplomacy,” Gorka replied. “We manufacture a narrative, and everything must protect the narrative. The narrative has been for far too long, if somebody says they are our allies, theyare our ally, and we’re going to stand by that – as opposed to analyzing relationships in the cold light of day, as Mr. Johnson seems to be doing.”

“We have a problem here. We have to address it,” he continued. “And even if it’s not the Saudi government, it is clearly elements of it that are problematic, in terms of the support of the international Salafist movement. The disparity between narrative and reality, I think both of our nations have suffered from that for far too long. It’s time for a healthy dose of common sense.”

Requiem for a Narrative

December 9, 2016

Requiem for a Narrative, Washington Free Beacon, , December 9, 2016

President Barack Obama gestures during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara)

President Barack Obama gestures during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara)

At a dinner in Washington earlier this week—one packed with well-meaning folks who really, really wanted this year’s election to have gone the other way—I heard a speaker cite Elizabeth Bishop’s One Art by way of consoling the audience. “The art of losing isn’t hard to master,” the poem famously begins. The speaker hastened to remind the room that, later in the poem, we are informed numerous times that losing “is no disaster.” With that in mind, those who didn’t like the election’s result should buck up and dive back into the fight, and so forth.

It didn’t seem like the time or place for me to point out that the poem’s declarations that losing isn’t a disaster are clearly ironic. It also didn’t seem the time to note that among the most important reasons why so many people supported Trump was that they were conscious of a series of painful disasters, the existence of which the Obama administration, abetted by a friendly press, refused to acknowledge. The nature of our politics today—and perhaps immemorially—is that every ambitious mayor or governor of a state feels the need to create a narrative of success: build a stadium or bridge that he can slap his name on, massage the crime statistics to show civic healing, and call it good.

If the reality matches the narrative, so much the better—but you won’t find too many politicians admitting that things haven’t improved, or that they have actually grown worse. Obama and his aides certainly weren’t big on admitting shortcomings, and after the electoral wipeout they have just suffered, it looks like their most lasting impact will be to have discredited the word “narrative” among a large portion of Americans. That’s something, I guess.

For years, Americans were told that after the financial panic in 2008, the president’s policies had put us on a steady course to a strong economy. But in much of the country, people looked around them and thought, That just doesn’t seem right. Especially in those parts of the country hit the hardest by the transition from the Industrial Era to the Information Age, people asked a number of questions. If the economy is doing so great, why are my adult children not moving out? If the unemployment rate is declining, why are so many prime-age males not working? And doesn’t it matter that the quality of jobs for non-college graduates is so obviously worse than it was a generation ago? Why, instead of working, are so many people dependent on public benefits and falling prey to addiction?

All of these questions had answers—but looking to the Obama White House for clarity about the uncomfortable tradeoffs their policies involved was a fool’s errand. Take, as an example, the crusade against coal, pushed by activists and coastal liberals for whom shutting down these companies was a clear and uncomplicated good deed on behalf of Mother Earth, of which the only real victims would be the greedy energy executives. The miners could retrain, or get “green jobs,” or something.

Well, a lot of the coal companies did shut down, or all but shut down. Many of the owners cut their losses and moved on—capital may be inconvenienced, but it generally does not suffer. The workers just lost their jobs. The economy in places like southeastern Ohio wasn’t exactly ready to absorb them, and as for retraining—well, you give that a try when you’re 45 years old. The availability of welfare and disability payments is a bitter replacement for the dignity of an honest, decently paid job. The only good news in some of these regions for much of the last eight years was the fracking revolution, a phenomenon that generally occurred in spite of the president’s best efforts.

We were also told, again and again, that things were going well abroad. The tide of war was receding. Afghans and Iraqis were taking the lead. Osama bin Laden was dead, and al Qaeda was on the run. And people again thought, That just doesn’t seem right. As recently as this Tuesday, President Obama was still at it, telling troops assembled at MacDill Air Force Base (side note: polls suggest that a plurality in that room must have voted for Donald Trump) that, a few bumps in the road notwithstanding, things were going pretty well out there.

Characteristic of the head scratchers in Obama’s speech was this howler: “No foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.” Elsewhere in the speech the president cited the “homegrown and largely isolated individuals” who killed Americans in Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Fort Hood, and who were “radicalized online.” Never mind the fact that the Fort Hood terrorist exchanged a dozen or so emails with Anwar al-Awlaki, the American cleric who worked so hard to encourage American Muslims to murder their fellow citizens, or that al Qaeda and ISIS were actively calling for such attacks, and providing instructions for how to carry them out in their online magazines.

People listen to this sort of hairsplitting, and they think, that just doesn’t seem right. One hears the president, during the same speech, praise the campaign against the Islamic State as “sustainable,” and one can’t help but wonder, since when did we want a military effort against a trumped up gang of women-beating thugs like this to be “sustainable”? Swift, yes; crushing, sure; but “sustainable?” How about “victorious”? How about “over”?

“Fake news” is becoming a catch-all explanation for Democrats to explain Hillary Clinton’s loss. Voters didn’t trust Hillary, and didn’t appreciate the great deal they were getting from Obama, because of right-wing lies. The problem with this explanation is that it was hardly necessary for Russian troll farms to sow distrust about the Obama administration, when the administration (not to mention the Clinton campaign!) was itself such a relentless and strategic purveyor of half-truths and convenient omissions. For eight years, the word from the top just didn’t seem right—and the lack of trust such habitual semi-honesty engendered is why the left is very much the author of its own disaster.

UN Chief Compares Populist Success of Trump and Farage to Islamic State

December 9, 2016

UN Chief Compares Populist Success of Trump and Farage to Islamic State, Breitbart, Liam Deacon, December 9, 2016

trumpfarage

Nigel Farage and Donald Trump are “populists and demagogues” using tactics comparable to Islamic State (IS), and the success of populism in 2016 echoes “fascist rhetoric”, the United Nation’s rights chief has said.

Jordanian aristocrat Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein, the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, blamed populism for an alleged rise in “hate crimes” and warned of the “banalization of bigotry” in Europe, according to the Telegraph.

He also took aim at Dutch nationalist Geert Wilders, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, and French Front National leader Marine Le Pen in a speech this Monday at a gala dinner organized by the Hague-based Peace, Justice and Security Foundation.

“2016 has been a disastrous year for human rights across the globe,” Mr. Zeid said. “If the growing erosion of the carefully constructed system of human rights and rule of law continues to gather momentum, ultimately everyone will suffer.”

He added: “In some parts of Europe, and in the United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged”.

Compared right-wing populism to Islamic State terrorists, he claiming the “mode of communication, its use of half-truths and oversimplification, the propaganda of [IS] uses tactics similar to those of the populists.”

“And both sides of this equation benefit from each other – indeed would not expand in influence without each others’ actions,” he added.

However, he also said: “Make no mistake, I certainly do not equate the actions of nationalist demagogues with those of Daesh, which are monstrous, sickening; Daesh must be brought to justice”.

Singling out Mr. Wilders’ call to stop asylum seekers entering his country and for a ban on Muslim schools, the UN boss said the policy proposals were “grotesque” and urged the audience “to speak out and up” against them.

“We will not be bullied by you the bully, nor fooled by you the deceiver, not again,” he insisted.

In a text message responding to the Telegraph’s requests for a reaction to the speech, Mr Wilders wrote: “Another good reason to get rid of the UN. I lost my freedom in my fight for freedom, and I don’t want my country to lose its freedom as well.

“That’s why we have to de-Islamize. Islam and freedom are incompatible whatever this Jordanian bureaucrat says.”

This morning, Mr. Wilders was found guilty of “incitement to discrimination” by a Dutch court. He branded the trial a politically motivated “charade” that endangered freedom of speech.

The killer wind from Hurricane Donald

December 9, 2016

The killer wind from Hurricane Donald, Washington Times Analysis/OpinionWesley Pruden, December 8, 2016

kapernikColin Kaepernick (Associated Press)

They said it couldn’t be done, and even if it could, Donald Trump wouldn’t be the man to do it. But a fresh wind from somewhere is blowing through the jungle where the timid, the fearful and the politically correct cower in the shade of the no-no tree.

If the Donald were elected, wise men confidently told us, the economy would collapse, America’s friends abroad would die of diplomatic shock, rivers would run backward and the sun would never shine again. Oh, dear. Woe is us.

But suddenly, it’s woe that’s in retreat. The stock market is booming, Americans are smiling again as investor confidence grows and the Donald’s critics who were only yesterday predicting that the world would end by Christmas are no longer so sure. The world might stumble on until Easter.

First Carrier, the iconic air-conditioner manufacturer, decided that well, maybe, it wasn’t so important after all to move everything to Mexico. Maybe it could stick around in Indiana. This upset the naysayers no end, who complained that handing out tax breaks to companies just to stay here and create jobs for Americans was a catastrophic idea, even though the several states have been doing that for years in the endless pursuit of jobs.

Now United States Steel says it has thought about things, maybe it should accelerate its investments in the United States, and bring back workers it laid off when it, too, sang in the Greek chorus of doom and gloom.

“We already structured to do some things,” says Mario Longhi, the CEO of U.S. Steel, “but when you see in the near future improvements to the tax laws, improvements to regulation, those two things by themselves may be a significant driver to what we’re going to do.”

And not just all that. The growing belief in the Trump administration now assembling that the economy, stagnant for lo! these many months of the Obama administration, can grow to at least 3.5 percent adds to what his company can do, Mr. Longhi tells CNBC.

“I’d be more than happy to bring back the employees we’ve been forced to lay off during that depressive period.” He said he might be talking about a truly stunning 10,000 workers. A company spokesman later offered the clarification that Mr. Longhi was talking about the steel industry overall, not just about U.S. Steel. Still, 10,000 jobs is 10,000 jobs, and it’s still stunning.

Even some of the critics who had nothing but sneers and snark for the Donald mere weeks ago are trying to learn the words and music of a different tune now. Al Gore, who has made millions with his global-warming schemes and the actor Leonardo diCaprio, who dreams of titanic wealth harvested from the sun, beat a path to Trump Tower. They emerged separately to say (in artful language) that the Donald may not be the ignorant monster they said he was.

The fresh wind blowing is not all of the Donald’s making, of course, but he’s the one who cracked the ice. McDonald’s, encouraged by what it sees going on in the United States, says it will move its international tax base from Luxembourg to London to escape scrutiny from European Union tax collectors in the wake of the coming British exit from the EU. Maybe Brexit was not so bad, after all.

“We are aligning our corporate structure with the way we do business, which is no longer in geographies,” a company spokesman says. That’s corporate argle-bargle companies pay big bucks to public-relations companies to tell them what to say, but translated into English it means they’re getting out of Europe now that liberation is at hand.

Everyone feels liberated to say what he means. Adm. Harry Harris, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, has to be a diplomat and be measured in what he says. But he let fly in Honolulu this week with a tribute to the men and women who died three quarters of a century ago at Pearl Harbor. “You can bet,” he said, “that the men and women we honor today — and those who died on that fateful morning 75 years ago — never took a knee and never failed to stand when they heard our national anthem being played.”

He never mentioned Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers quarterback who is making a career of sneering at Old Glory now that his football career is foundering. But he didn’t have to. The crowd cheered and whistled for a full minute.

Donald Trump has hard days ahead to deliver what he promised, and he won’t get a lot of help from the loyal opposition. But he has wounded everything politically correct, and that’s a lot. We must pray the wounds are mortal.

CNN documentary: Republicans are racists for opposing Obama

December 8, 2016

CNN documentary: Republicans are racists for opposing Obama, Washington TimesBradford Richardson, December 8, 2016

(Why certainly! Just like Hillary lost because everyone who voted for Trump — a racist, misogynist antisemite who hates women and Hispanics  — is anti-feminist and anti-everything else good. Despite the vileness of Trump’s election, no Democrat would even consider demanding recounts or otherwise challenging the legitimacy of Trump’s terrible un-democratic election or erecting obstacles to his absurd agenda. — DM)

obama-jpeg-3ad0d_c0-229-5472-3419_s885x516President Barack Obama during a U.S. counterterrorism strategy speech at MacDill Air Force Base Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara)

A new CNN documentary about President Obama speculates that Republican opposition to the first black president’s big-government program was rooted in racial animus.

True to Mr. Obama’s legacy, “The Legacy of Barack Obama” finds plenty of time to bash Republicans.

“Did race play a role in the brick wall of Republican resistance to Barack Obama?” former Obama adviser and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria asks at the outset of the documentary, which aired on Wednesday.

The two-hour primetime exposé, first reported by NewsBusters, features a who’s who of liberal pundits – many of them former Obama White House officials – who wholeheartedly agree that racism was a driving force behind Republican resistance to the president’s efforts to grow the size of government and centralize power in Washington, D.C.

After delving into Mr. Obama’s upbringing, the documentary cuts to a joyous scene at the president’s 2008 acceptance speech.

“It seemed like a fairy tale beginning but at precisely the moment the first couple began swaying on the dance floor, the central crisis of the Obama presidency was already taking shape,” Mr. Zakaria narrates.

“Within half a mile of where Obama and Michelle are dancing and celebrating their great victory, his Republican opponents are wining and dining and plotting his downfall,” says The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, adding that “15 of the most powerful Republicans in Washington made a pact that night” to undermine Mr. Obama at every turn.

“It’s indisputable that there was a ferocity to the opposition and a lack of respect to him that was a function of race,” says David Axelrod, a CNN political commentator and former chief strategist to the president.

And CNN political commentator Van Jones, a former top environmental official in the Obama administration, says he can’t think of a single thing congressional Republicans and Mr. Obama agreed on over eight years. But he can think of one thing – and only one thing – that explains the discord.

“You have to have an extraordinary explanation for this level of obstruction,” Mr. Jones says, evidently not referring to philosophical disagreement between liberalism and conservatism about the size and scope of government.

Although the documentary hints at racism around every corner of the bicameral legislature, it does not actually accuse any lawmakers of being racists.

“David Axelrod says, at least one powerful Republican was personally disrespectful to Obama,” Mr. Zakaria feebly alleges at one point.

Bringing the evening to a race-baiting crescendo, Mr. Zakaria recalls an incident in which Mr. Obama said a police officer “acted stupidly” by arresting a black Harvard professor who tried to force his way into his home after finding the door jammed.

The CNN anchor notes that the timing of the controversy coincided with fierce Republican opposition to Obamacare, which passed without a single GOP vote.

Suddenly, Mr. Zakaria remarks, “Rage over ObamaCare was turning to race.”

The collapse of the political left

December 8, 2016

The collapse of the political left, Washington ExaminerMichael Barone, December 7, 2016

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

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

It’s been a tough decade for the political left. Eight years ago a Time magazine cover portrayed Barack Obama as Franklin Roosevelt, complete with cigarette and holder and a cover line proclaiming “The New New Deal.” A Newsweek cover announced  “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Now the cover story is different. Time has just announced, inevitably though a bit begrudgingly, that its Person of the Year for 2016 is Donald Trump. No mention of New Deals or socialism.

It’s not surprising that newsmagazine editors expected a move to the left. The history they’d been taught by New Deal admirers, influenced by the doctrines of Karl Marx, was that economic distress moves voters to demand a larger and more active government.

There was some empirical evidence in that direction as well. The recession triggered by the financial crisis of 2007-08 was the deepest experienced by anyone not old enough to remember the 1930s. Barack Obama was elected with 53 percent of the popular vote—more than any candidate since the 1980s—and Democrats had won congressional elections with similar majorities in 2006 and 2008.

Things look different now, and not just because Donald Trump was elected president. It has been clear that most voters have been rejecting big government policies, and not just in the United States but in most democratic nations around the world.

Leftist politicians supposed that ordinary voters with modest incomes facing hard times would believe that regulation and redistribution would help them. Evidently most don’t.

The rejection was apparent in the 2010 and subsequent House elections; Republicans have now won House majorities in ten of the last 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations. You didn’t hear Hillary Clinton campaign on the glories of Obamacare or the Iran nuclear deal, and her attack on “Trumped-up, trickle-down economics” didn’t strike any chords in the modest-income Midwest.

Republican success has been even greater in governor and state legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold governorships and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.

Things look similar abroad. Britain’s Conservatives, returned to government in 2010, are in a commanding position over a left-lurching Labour party. France’s Socialist president, with single-digit approval, declined to run for a second term. European social democratic parties have been hemorrhaging votes, and got walloped in Sunday’s Italian referendum. In Latin America and Asia, the left is declining or on the defensive.

Overall history is not bending toward happy acceptance of ever-larger government at home. Nor toward submersion of national powers and identities into large and inherently undemocratic international organizations. The nation-state remains the focus of most peoples’ loyalties, and in a time of economic and cultural diffusion, as Yuval Levin argues in his recent book The Fractured Republic, big government policies designed for an age of centralization have become increasingly dysfunctional.

Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed this, at least until some time between nine and ten o’clock election night. Shrewder center-left politicians who have shown they know how to win elections have. Bill Clinton urged his wife’s campaign managers to put her out in rural areas speaking to voters’ concerns. The thirty-something geniuses she installed in her trendy Brooklyn headquarters knew better.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in Washington this week, said, “We have to pay attention to culture and identity,” and argued that in response to Islamist extremism, “Political correctness can’t get in the way.”

Such advice suggests that a sharp shift in current leftist strategy, which includes “identity politics” appeals to minorities at home and obeisance to the wisdom of supranational entities like the Paris climate changeconference and the European Union.

What’s missing in that is a concentration on the interests of one’s own citizenry. To the left that smacks of nationalism, which some seem to regard as only a baby step away from Nazism.

It’s not. The United States Constitution was designed to provide a framework in which rights are guaranteed and voters in states can choose policies in line with their different backgrounds and beliefs.

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

Assessing the Obama legacy

December 8, 2016

Assessing the Obama legacy, Washington Times, Victor Davis Hanson, December 7, 2016

obamlegacy

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In his 2016 State of the Union address, President Obama summarized his achievements. That same night, the White House issued a press release touting Mr. Obama’s accomplishments.

Now that he will be leaving, how well did these initiatives listed in the press release actually work out?

“Securing the historic Paris climate agreement.”

 The accord was never submitted to Congress as a treaty. It will be ignored by President-elect Donald Trump.

“Achieving the Iran nuclear deal.”

That “deal” was another effort to circumvent the treaty-ratifying authority of Congress. It has green-lighted Iranian aggression, and it probably ensured nuclear proliferation. Iran’s violations will cause the new Trump administration to either scrap the accord or send it to Congress for certain rejection.

“Securing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Even Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton came out against this failed initiative. It has little support in Congress or among the public. Opposition to the TTP helped fuel the Trump victory.

“Reopening Cuba.”

The recent Miami celebration of the death of Fidel Castro, and Mr. Trump’s victory in Florida, are testimonies to the one-sided deal’s unpopularity. The United States got little in return for the Castro brothers’ propaganda coup.

“Destroying ISIL” and “dismantling al Qaeda.”

We are at last making some progress against some of these “jayvee” teams, as Mr. Obama once described the Islamic State. Neither group has been dismantled or destroyed. Despite the death of Osama bin Laden, the widespread reach of radical Islam into Europe and the United States remains largely unchecked.

“Ending combat missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The Afghan war rages on. The precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. peacekeepers in 2011 from a quiet Iraq helped sow chaos in the rest of the Middle East. We are now sending more troops back into Iraq.

“Closing Guantanamo Bay.”

This was an eight-year broken promise. The detention center still houses dangerous terrorists.

“Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region.”

The anemic “Asia Pivot” failed. The Philippines is now openly pro-Russian and pro-Chinese. Traditional allies such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are terrified that the United States is no longer a reliable guarantor of their autonomy.

“Supporting Central American development.”

The once-achievable promise of a free-market, democratic Latin America is moribund. Dictatorships in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua remain impoverished bullies. All have been appeased by the U.S.

“Strengthening cybersecurity.”

Democrats claimed Russian interference in the recent election. If true, it is proof that there is no such thing as “cybersecurity.” The WikiLeaks releases, the hacked Clinton emails and the Edward Snowden disclosures confirm that the Obama administration was the least cybersecure presidency in history.

“Growing the Open Government Partnership.”

The NSA scandal, the hounding of Associated Press journalists, some of the WikiLeaks troves and the corruption at the Internal Revenue Service all reveal that the Obama administration was one of the least transparent presidencies in memory.

“Honoring our nation’s veterans.”

Mr. Obama’s Department of Veterans Affairs was mired in scandal, and some of its nightmarish VA hospitals were awash in disease and unnecessary deaths. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki was forced to resign amid controversy. Former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized for issuing an offensive report falsely concluding that returning war vets were liable to join right-wing terrorist groups.

“Making sure our politics reflect America’s best.”

The 2016 presidential campaign was among the nastiest on record. WikiLeaks revealed unprecedented collusion between journalists and the Clinton campaign. Earlier, Mr. Obama had been the first president in U.S. history to refuse public campaign money. He was also the largest fundraiser of private cash and the greatest collector of Wall Street money in the history of presidential campaigns.

“Protecting voting rights.”

Riots followed the recent presidential election. Democrats, without merit, joined failed Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount in key swing states they lost. Progressives are berating the constitutionally guaranteed Electoral College. State electors are being subject to intimidation campaigns.

“Strengthening policing.”

Lethal attacks on police are soaring.

“Promoting immigrant and refugee integration and citizenship awareness.”

The southern U.S. border is largely unenforced. Immigration law is deliberately ignored. The president’s refugee policy was unpopular and proved a disaster, as illustrated by the Boston Marathon bombings, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando nightclub shooting and the recent Ohio State University terrorist violence.

Note what Mr. Obama’s staff omitted: his doubling of the U.S. debt in eight years, the unworkable and soon-to-be-repealed Affordable Care Act, seven years of anemic economic growth, record labor nonparticipation, failed policy resets abroad, and a Middle East in ruins.

Why, then, has the president’s previously sinking popularity suddenly rebounded in 2016?

Mr. Obama disappeared from our collective television screens, replaced by unpopular candidates Clinton and Trump, who slung mud at each other and stole the limelight.

As a result, Mr. Obama discovered that the abstract idea of a lame-duck Mr. Obama was more popular than the cold reality of eight-year President Obama.

He wisely adjusted by rarely being heard from or seen for much of 2016.

So Mr. Obama now departs amid the ruin of the Democratic Party into a lucrative post-presidency: detached and without a legacy.