Displaying posts published in

November 2016

Europe’s Trump Panic Maybe EU leaders should emulate his call for more defense spending.

The European Union greeted Donald Trump’s election with gnashing of teeth and a typically chaotic “emergency summit” in Brussels over the weekend. Please, folks, get a grip.

This isn’t to say Europe doesn’t have cause for concern. The President-elect’s antitrade convictions could be economically and politically damaging on both sides of the Atlantic. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks between the U.S. and EU may suffer the same fate as the Pacific trade talks did last week.

Mr. Trump’s soft spot for Vladimir Putin could exacerbate divisions between EU hawks and doves on the bloc’s response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Mr. Trump also questioned America’s commitment to NATO, though he has since walked that back. One of his surrogates, Newt Gingrich, raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to smaller allies such as Estonia, which the former House Speaker described as a suburb of St. Petersburg.

But the EU bears some responsibility for alienating American voters who have trouble understanding the rationale for continued U.S. support for European security or free trade. One of Mr. Trump’s legitimate complaints about NATO is that only Estonia, Greece, Poland, the U.S. and U.K. meet the pact’s minimum requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

In 2014 the newsweekly Der Spiegel noted that Germany, which spends about 1% of its gross domestic product on defense, would be able to deploy a grand total of 10 attack helicopters, 80 jet fighters and one submarine in a war. This in a country with a GDP of nearly $3.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is the candidate who vowed to increase U.S. defense spending after years of declines under President Obama.

The EU also hasn’t covered itself in glory on trade. French and German politicians declared TTIP dead earlier this year even as the Obama Administration was trying to keep hopes for a deal alive. The EU did manage recently to conclude a free-trade deal with Canada, but only after barely overcoming a veto by Belgian dairy farmers. Decades of demagogy in Europe about the evils of all things American, from genetically modified foods to the “cowboy” instincts of U.S. foreign policy, haven’t exactly fostered a spirit of trans-Atlantic amity.

Obama Says Donald Trump Will Be Driven by Pragmatism Not Ideology as President President warns successor not to unravel progress made on health care, climate change, Iran nuclear deal Carol Lee see note please

Is the lame duck clucking this advice? Does he not get the fact that the election was also a repudiation of his policies?….rsk

President Barack Obama said he believes President-elect Donald Trump will be driven by pragmatism, not ideology, as he governs, but he warned the Republican businessman’s temperament could be an issue unless he shifts course once in office.

Mr. Obama, speaking at his first news conference since Election Day, said he has “concerns” about a Trump presidency, while expressing some hope that his successor may not unravel his legacy on health care, climate change and the agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program.

“He is coming into this office with fewer set-hard-and-fast policy prescriptions than other presidents,” Mr. Obama said.

“I don’t think he is ideological. I think ultimately he is pragmatic,” Mr. Obama said. “And that can serve him well, as long as he’s got good people around him.”

Mr. Obama had several warnings for Mr. Trump, including suggesting he not undo some of his major foreign-policy achievements, such as the Iran nuclear deal and the international climate-change agreement.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks declined to comment.

Before the election, Mr. Obama had campaigned more for Democrat Hillary Clinton than any modern sitting president had for his party’s nominee. He told Americans Mr. Trump would be a danger to the country if he were elected, saying he is “uniquely unqualified” for the presidency and couldn’t be trusted with the U.S.’s nuclear weapons arsenal.

He also repeatedly promised world leaders that Mr. Trump wouldn’t get elected. CONTINUE AT SITE

Michael Galak Waiting for the Antipodean Trump

When will we see the emergence of a leader immune to the PC hectoring and abuse heaped on the US president-elect? Whenever that figure rises on our public stage, expect the same reaction we are seeing on the streets of the US: the impotent fury of the irrelevant left.
I still don’t believe it – Hillary Clinton is not POTUS. A ghost somewhat resembling Ronald Reagan is back in the saddle, the Clintons are relegated to history’s dustbin (and perhaps the penal system) and the Left, as usual, is both wrong and furious. I did not mention Ronald Reagan by mistake – the parallels are plentiful, especially in the vilification department.

There are more than enough post-mortems of the miraculously, marvelously upsetting and unexpected outcome of these elections, all featuring the allegedly wise heads who said a Trump triumph was impossible but who now, once again and undaunted, dispense their oracular wisdom about what the future will hold. In case you can’t guess, by their accounting it will be mostly terrible. I will not tell you why did Donald Trump won, except to note that, judging by the impotent fury of progressives and aggressives, various minorities and terminal idiots, the right person won the prize. The high-decibel rabble now protesting democracy and its result in America are livid that their countrymen — their lesser countrymen, as they would have it — dared to think for themselves, refused to do as they were told. How typical of the Left, which professes to love democracy but only until such time when the elections don’t go their way.

There is yet more comic relief from the ranks of the Republican elite, where we can observe an indecent haste to eat their words, uttered so recently with indignation and righteous fury when disowning their own candidate. Now the same scolds and naysayers are, pardon the pun, trumpling each other in a race to gather the crumbs of power from the table of the man they urged their fellow Americans to scorn in the voting booth. This is the same guy they maligned, undermined and betrayed at every turn. It is better to watch than a five-ring circus, albeit with more than the usual quota of clowns. To the extent that our political stage here in Australia is a sideshow beside the big top of US politics, the critics-turned-supplicants bring to mind our very own Malcolm Turnbull, PM, who bucketed Pauline Hanson in the run-up to the election and must now work with the very same woman he denigrated and reviled. You would have to be Niki Savva (or have a hubby working in the PM’s office) to see anything but an egomaniacal blowhard’s folly in that little prime ministerial outburst.

But I was talking about a US election, so let me observe that, as a long-term student of the American system, I can’t remember such fury after any other election which did not go the left’s way. Why such a strong feeling this time? I am mildly concerned that the combination of the left’s frustration and presumed moral superiority might prompt episodes of armed violence, as idiots consider it their right and obligation to resist “tyranny”. It is an impression enhanced by an internet meme doing the rounds as I type — a Facebook post allegedly authored by Hollywood scriptwriter Paul Schrader. It may be a hoax — I hope it is — but the currency of its instantly widespread circulation and endorsements is deeply unsettling. Here is the post that thousands of disgruntled leftists are “liking” (emphasis added):

I have spent the last five days meditating on Trump’s election. Upon consideration, I believe this is a call to violence. I felt the call to violence in the 60’s and I feel it now again. This attack on liberty and tolerance will not be solved by appeasement. Obama tried that for eight years. We should finance those who support violence resistance. We should be willing to take arms. Like Old John Brown, I am willing to battle with my children. Alt-right nut jobs swagger violence. It’s time to actualize that violence, Like by Civil War Michigan predecessors I choose to stand with the black, the brown and the oppressed.

European Temper Trumptums Europe Holds “Panic Dinner” by Judith Bergman

The arrogant claim to the moral high ground by European elites has no basis in reality.

There is no respect for freedom and democracy on a continent where citizens, such as the politician Geert Wilders, are arrested and prosecuted by in a court of law for speaking their minds freely about topics that the authorities find it expedient not to debate in public.

Freedom, respect for the rule of law, and people’s race, religion and gender have never been less respected and protected in Germany during the post-WWII era than under Merkel. German authorities have completely failed to protect women, Christians and others from the chaos unleashed by the mass, unvetted, immigration of mainly Muslim migrants from Africa and the Middle East. The rule of law is anything but “respected” in Germany.

Not everyone is “panicking”. UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, rejected the invitation and told his colleagues to end their “collective whinge-o-rama” about the U.S. election result.

Critics of the U.S. election omitted, however, the runaway lawlessness, divisiveness and corruption that American voters declined to reinstate.

“A world is collapsing before our eyes”, tweeted the French ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, as it became clear that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election. Although he later apparently deleted the tweet, the sentiment expressed in his tweet encapsulates the attitude of the majority of the European political establishment.

Deutsche Welle (DW), Germany’s international broadcaster, described the reaction to Trump’s victory across Germany’s political spectrum as “shock and uncertainty.” Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen described Trump’s win as a “heavy shock.” German Justice Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: “The world won’t end, but things will get more crazy”.

Green party leader Cem Özdemir called Trump’s election a “break with the tradition that the West stands for liberal values.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s deputy chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said:

“Trump is the trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. … They want a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail and unions at best at the side table. And he who doesn’t keep his mouth shut gets publicly bashed.”

The Secret War of Agence France Presse against Israel by Yves Mamou

Biased information about Israel in the French press is not an episodic occurrence. It is a systematic one. The main engine of this biased information industry is blatantly the Agence France Presse.

It is so thoroughly a “pro-Palestinian news agency” that this French institution does not see anything unethical about hiring Palestinian activists as reporters: “Nasser Abu Baker, the chairman of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate, the leading force for the boycott of Israeli journalists and media, also writes for the influential French news agency.”

The same bias appears in the media and news agencies all over the developed world, including Reuters, the BBC and the AP. Why, when it comes to Israel, is such a misinterpretation of reality so generalized in the press? The only answer is that a war is in progress: a war of delegitimization.

On July 15, 2016, after the truck ramming that killed 84 people in Nice, France, Agence France Presse (AFP) released a report entitled, “When Vehicles Become Weapons”. It is the duty of a large news agency such as AFP to list, for its customers, examples of countries that are suffering from vehicular terrorism.

Concerning Israel, we can read in the third paragraph: “In Israel and the Palestinian territories, car-ramming attacks have featured heavily in a wave of violence that has killed at least 215 Palestinians, 34 Israelis, two Americans, an Eritrean and a Sudanese since October last year”.

A naïve reader might understand that in Israel and Palestinian territories, Jews and Muslims — or Israelis and Palestinians — find it amusing to use their vehicles to kill innocent passersby. He might think also that Jews are far better players of this gamer than are Muslims, because they killed “215 Palestinians” against only “34 Israelis.”

As the website Honest Reporting noticed:

“In fact, the total number of Israelis who have committed car ramming attacks against Palestinians is exactly zero, but a reader would have no way of knowing that. To the contrary, the AFP’s language gives the incorrect appearance that more Palestinians are targeted by car ramming attacks than Israelis.”

Biased information about Israel in the French press is not an episodic occurrence. It is a systematic one. The main engine of this biased information industry is blatantly the Agence France Presse.

AFP — like Reuters, Associated Press or Bloomberg — is a news agency with offices all over the world (150 countries and 200 bureaus). But it is not a private company; it is supposed to be a cooperative owned by customers (newspapers, radios and TV channels), but it is actually a state-owned company, heavily subsidized due to the large number of subscriptions from different French government ministries — especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The managing director of AFP is appointed by the government. AFP is a tool of French diplomacy and is considered an arm of France’s cultural international influence.

AFP has a large “bureau” in Jerusalem and its journalists have an enormous influence on the European and Middle Eastern press. This influence is enormous because its reports are literally copied-and-pasted by newspapers and countless websites in France and Europe.

Trump could put the US economy back on track David Goldman

ww.atimes.com/trump-put-us-economy-back-track/

The surge in industrial and raw materials stock prices and the collapse of bond markets since Donald Trump’s election victory portend a very different kind of world economy. Rather than persisting in a world of quantitative easing, with extremely low interest rates and 1%-2% growth, the United States has the potential to get back onto a normal recovery track.

How much can it grow? The US economy is 10% smaller than it would have been under a “normal” economic recovery since 2008, and if it can regain half the lost ground, that’s an additional 5% of GDP. The global rally in capital equipment stocks reflects America’s need for capital goods imports to gear up.

Beijing does not expect a trade war with the United States; Trump is viewed by China as a pragmatic businessman, perhaps a tough negotiator, but a man whose object is to get a deal rather than to make ideological points.

There’s a new sheriff in town by Richard Baehr

Tens of thousands of anti-Trump demonstrators (and in some cases rioters) have ‎taken to the streets to protest Donald Trump’s victory last Tuesday. The protesters ‎seem to be a collection of those who supported Bernie Sanders and those who show ‎up for Black Lives Matter demonstrations. If more of these two groups had shown ‎up to vote in a few key states, Hillary Clinton might now be working on the Clinton restoration project at the White House. ‎

While there are still several million mail-in ballots to be counted in California and a ‎few other states, which will certainly add to the popular vote margin for Clinton, ‎the fact is that American presidential elections are decided in the Electoral College, and Trump appears to have won more electoral college ‎votes (306) than any Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988. In other words, ‎in the arena that mattered, Trump’s victory was decisive. No Republican had won ‎Michigan or Pennsylvania since 1988, or Wisconsin since 1984. ‎

Of course, with Clinton’s majority in the popular vote, some of her supporters ‎are now demanding that the “national will” be honored, and that electors from states backing Trump should vote for Clinton. This, of course, will not happen. So, ‎too, none of the Hollywood personalities who promised to move to Canada if ‎Trump won have yet chartered flights to Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. ‎One wonders why these people never threaten to move to Mexico.

The Trump victory, accompanied by sweeping Republican victories down-ballot in ‎the Senate and House, state legislatures and governors’ races, provides hope to conservatives and Republicans for a reversal ‎of much of what they believe has been the damage done by the Obama administration ‎in its two terms.‎

One area where the tone of the administration should change immediately is U.S. ‎relations with Israel. On the day after his victory, Trump spoke with Israeli Prime ‎Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and invited him to Washington. Netanyahu seemed pleased that Israel once again would have a friend in ‎the White House. Contrast this with the posture of ‎President Barack Obama, who set the tone on his first day in office by making his first call to a foreign leader to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.‎ Later, Obama helped organize a boycott of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in ‎‎2015; walked out on him during one meeting in Washington; made sure his State ‎Department offered up strident condemnations either through press secretaries or ‎top administration officials of every bit of news from Israel on any construction ‎project across the Green Line; and blamed Israel for the lack of progress in the ‎peace process.

The President’s Dream of a Palestinian State By Herbert London President, London Center for Policy Research

For those who believe President Obama is a lame duck simply waiting for his departure from the White House and the commencement of wealth pursuits, there is a likely surprise coming. The president has signaled that he may seek a U.N. Security Council Resolution which embodies a Palestinian state with pre-1967 lines, notwithstanding a different stance by President Elect Donald Trump.

This remarkable act would unequivocally betray the U.S. policy of vetoing anti-Israel resolutions. It would also attempt to make “illegal” Israeli buildings in east Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and set in place a stance that President Trump would be hard pressed to overturn. Recently President Obama, in language that can only be regarded as hostile, said that settlement construction, even if regarded as an organic expansion of overcrowded areas is unacceptable.

Despite the long-standing and “inmutable” ties between Israel and the United States, the Obama administration questioned whether Israel is a “friend”. Even a New York Times editorial called for the president to lead the Security Council in a resolution to support a two-state solution. When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu argued a Palestinian state would be one with “no Jews,” an extreme form of ethnic cleansing – which President Abbas of the Palestinian Territory actually said – the U.S. administration denied it.

Should such a Palestinian state be created, the consequences are likely to be extreme. First, direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinian authorities would be rendered irrelevant. Why negotiate when your goals can be achieved through third parties?

Second, despite assurances likely to be provided by President Obama, the influence of Hamas and Iran is almost inevitable. As a consequence, terror and violence will be the aftermath of the president’s initiative.

Misogyny- Chic By Marilyn Penn

In the wake of the universal “shock” at Donald Trump’s private comments to Billy Bush, remarks that automatically branded him as terminally misogynistic, it’s fascinating to see the reaction of critics to the film “Elle,” the latest offering from Paul Verhoeven. Since this article is not meant as a review, stop reading now if you want to see the movie for yourself. The chattering classes were overwhelmingly impressed and delighted by this film about recurring rapes in which the level of violence escalates as the heroine refuses to notify the police. Isabelle Hupert plays the icy head of a video-game company who keeps urging her young male employees to ratchet up the sex and violence in the program they are currently creating. She is a divorced single mother whose ex-husband and son are both weak, unsuccessful men whom she berates routinely. But she’s an equal opportunity exploiter of women as she cheats on her trusted friend/partner with that woman’s husband; maligns and humiliates her elderly mother, perversely recounts her recent rape at a dinner table as casually if she were discussing what to choose from the menu.

If you’re a thoughtful viewer, you will question the sangfroid she displays after the initial horrifying attack as she picks herself up and immediately sets to cleaning up the broken dishes on the floor and then being more bemused than disturbed by the bloody foam visible in her bath. She has a backstory of being the daughter of an imprisoned mass killer and she may or may not have been implicated in his crime or in some previous sadistic abuse by her father. We soon see that the masked rapist, a tall man in a form-fitting S & M bodysuit, has access to her computer and her house – he leaves sexual messages that don’t seem to affect her decision not to call for protection. She has a tall handsome neighbor who is clearly a candidate for both predator and prey as she scrutinizes him through binoculars while simultaneously masturbating. At a dinner party to which she invites him and his wife, she plays footsie with his leg and proceeds higher to his crotch without betraying any change in her expression.

Though the rapes are brutal enough to leave you wondering whether both parties might end up dead, they are treated with a comic book approach to no lasting damage. At one point, our heroine’s head is bashed against a basement boiler but no medical care is necessary. Similarly, after her car overturns as she swerves to avoid hitting a deer, she is trapped inside and calls the neighbor/possible rapist to rescue her. He too is comfortable with the sight of blood and mashed tissue and patches up her leg expertly with no sign of squeamishness.

“What Progressives Got Wrong” Sydney M. Williams

“Trump’s Victory Challenges the Global Liberal Order”

Headline, “Financial Times”

November 10, 2016

Methinks the FT got it backward. The headline should have read: “Trump’s Victory May Restore the Global Liberal Order.” Because the “global liberal order” has eroded. Slowly, insidiously but certainly, individual liberties have diminished, as the state has assumed increasing responsibilities and as more people have become dependent on it. The inference is that the FT would have been pleased to have seen a continuation of the Obama policies of greater government involvement in the economy, and a concomitant decline in freedom – usurped by regulatory agencies, Executive Orders and political correctness. The headline reflects the failure of elites to understand why they lost. This decline in liberty is sad, for it was in Britain that modern liberalism first appeared – Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill – all men from whose message we have strayed.

While classical liberalism is fundamental to our success as a nation, economies have undergone a seismic shift. Technology, communication and globalization have fundamentally changed the way goods and services are produced, delivered and consumed. For a large number of Americans, certainty has been replaced with uncertainty, optimism by pessimism, hope by fear. Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” has done enough damage to the economy without making it worse with putative regulations. While progressives concern themselves with issues like protecting students from uncomfortable speech, transgender bathrooms and an elusive and amorphous desire for equality, millions of Americans are focused on surviving. It is not only roofs to protect them and food to sustain them that are needed, it is the sense of dignity and self-sufficiency that comes from work. It is not that the foci of progressives are unimportant, but that their priorities pale in comparison to the more fundamental need of people – jobs.