Displaying posts published in

2016

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.

ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA DEFENDS STEPHEN BANNON

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released the following statement:
It is painful to see Anti-Defamation League (ADL) president Jonathan Greenblatt engaging in character assassination against President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon and Mr. Bannon’s company, Breitbart media. ADL/Greenblatt essentially accused Mr. Bannon and his media company of “anti-Semitism” and Israel hatred, when Jonathan Greenblatt/ADL tweeted that Bannon “presided over the premier website of the ‘alt right’ – a loose-knit group of white nationalists and anti-Semites.”
In fact, as pro-Israel writer (and orthodox Jew) Joel B. Pollak wrote, Mr. Bannon is “an American patriot who defends Israel & has deep empathy for the Jewish people.”
ZOA’s own experience and analysis of Breitbart articles confirms Mr. Bannon’s and Breitbart’s friendship and fair-mindedness towards Israel and the Jewish people. To accuse Mr. Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism is Orwellian. In fact, Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism. Here are a few of the many examples:
Stephen Bannon joined ZOA in fighting the anti-Semitic rallies at CUNY by requiring his Breitbart reporters to call CUNY officials and Gov. Cuomo aides urging them to do something about it.
Breitbart courageously publishes articles reporting that the Palestinian Authority defames Israel with blatant falsehoods. On November 13, 2016, Breitbart reported that:

Stephen Bannon joined ZOA in fighting the anti-Semitic rallies at CUNY by requiring his Breitbart reporters to call CUNY officials and Gov. Cuomo aides urging them to do something about it.

“The Palestinian Authority’s official TV network has been airing a video several times a day baselessly accusing Israel of poisoning former PA President Yasser Arafat and further claiming that Israel is targeting current President Mahmoud Abbas next. Arafat died at the age of 75 on November 11, 2004, just outside of Paris. A French forensic team examined his remains and concluded that there were no traces of poison in his body. Nevertheless, every year around the anniversary of his death, the PA disseminates the libel that Israel murdered him.” (Emphasis in original.)
On November 14, 2016 Breitbart reported the human cost and pain to a Jewish student at the New School of finding a swastika scrawled on her dorm room door.
Breitbart bravely publicizes Iran’s violations of the Iran deal – which pose an existential threat to Israel. On November 13, 2016, Breitbart reported that “Despite a finding published by the UN’s atomic energy agency this week that Iran has — for the second time — stockpiled more heavy water than permitted under the terms of the nuclear agreement it reached with six world powers last year, the US State Department is declining to acknowledge this as a violation of the deal.”
Breitbart also sympathetically reports on the scourge of anti-Semitic anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS). On November 2, 2016, Breitbart reported that: “Reports of anti-Semitic incidents on US college campuses have increased, much of it attributed to the rise of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a new report has found.”
ZOA President Morton Klein stated: “The ZOA welcomes the appointment of Stephen Bannon as chief strategist to the incoming Trump/Pence administration. We wish Mr. Bannon every success in his new position. We urge Jonathan Greenblatt/ADL to withdraw and apologize for their inappropriate character assassination of Mr. Bannon and Breitbart Media.”
Would Trump’s extraordinary pro-Israel advisors such as Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Sheldon Adelson, and Orthodox Jews Jared Kushner, David Friedman, and Jason Greenblatt ever allow an anti-Semite/Israel-hater to work with them? Would Trump’s Orthodox Jewish daughter Ivanka, whose children go to an Orthodox day school, ever allow an anti-Semite to work with her father? And, remember Donald Trump’s platform on Israel was the strongest pro-Israel platform ever. I’m also forced to ask – why didn’t ADL and other Bannon bashers complain that Hilary’s advisers included some very anti-Israel people starting with major donor to Hillary, the Israel-hating, George Soros? Where were ADL’s complaints then?

Stephen K. Bannon: Friend of the Jewish People, Defender of Israel:Joel B.Pollak

I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.

A word or two about my credentials: I am an Orthodox Jew, and I hold a Master of Arts degree in Jewish Studies. My thesis at the Isaac and Jesse Kaplan Centre at the University of Cape Town dealt with the troubled status of Jews in an increasingly anti-Israel, and antisemitic, post-apartheid South Africa. I believe myself to be a qualified judge of what is, and is not, antisemitic.

It defies logic that a man who was a close friend, confidant, and adviser to the late Andrew Breitbart — a proud Jew — could have any negative feelings towards Jews. As I can testify from years of work together with Steve in close quarters, the opposite is the case: Steve is outraged by antisemitism. If anything, he is overly sensitive about it, and often takes offense on Jews’ behalf.

Steve cares deeply about the fate of Jewish communities in America and throughout the world, a fact that is reflected in Breitbart News’ daily coverage. It was in that spirit that Steve joined Breitbart News CEO Larry Solov (also Jewish) in launching Breitbart Jerusalem last year, fulfilling Andrew’s dream of opening a bureau in Israel specifically to cover the region from an unabashedly Zionist perspective.

Worried About Climate Change and Income Disparity? For only $150K, you, too, can tour the globe by private jet with the New York Times’ finest thought leaders. By Heather Mac Donald

The New York Times has been editorializing on a nearly daily basis since the election about the danger posed by President-elect Donald Trump to the very future of the earth. Rallying its readers on Thursday for the coming “Trump Years,” it argued against “fear or despondency” because “there is too much to be done.” For starters, according to the Times: “There is a planet to save. The earth is in peril from a changing climate no matter how many deniers say otherwise.” The day before, the paper had lamented that Trump may “repudiate last December’s Paris agreement on climate change, thereby abandoning America’s leadership role in addressing the biggest long-term threat to humanity.”

In the short term, however, if you’re a Times executive, marketer, or columnist, it’s still time to party, with all the oomph that a gasoline-fueled, capitalist economy can provide. In October, the Times announced its first-ever “Around the World by Private Jet” tour, slated for early 2018. “An Exclusive Private Charter,” in the words of the “luxury travel” firm of Abercrombie & Kent, will transport a mere “50 guests” to exotic locales in luxury hand-made leather flat-bed seats with “relaxing massage and adjustable lumbar support,” as a “dedicated flight crew attends” to their needs. The “guests” will “Enjoy Exclusive Events & Privileged Access,” such as private dining in Bogota’s Salt Cathedral, camping in luxury in the Moroccan desert, and exclusive after-hours access to the Blue Lagoon in Iceland.

The tour’s “exclusively chartered Boeing 757” ordinarily seats up to 295 passengers, of the pathetically non-“high-luxury” variety. So the carbon footprint of the Times’ 50 guests will be close to six times that of a commercial-jet traveler. If any of the guests feels a twinge of guilt over his greenhouse-gas emissions, he can chase it away by “enjoying a champagne toast inside an Icelandic ice funnel,” before learning “how climate change is affecting the land of fire and ice.” That’s after having been whisked to Easter Island to “learn how climate change is affecting” that location.

Sidney Blumenthal, Birtherism, and the Law of Unintended Consequences Sidney Blumenthal’s opposition research in 2008 may have had unintended consequences. By John Fund

Historians will be writing for decades about how Donald Trump improbably became president. Here’s one angle I hope they don’t ignore. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 supporters set in motion Trump’s candidacy when they began spreading rumors that Barack Obama had been born in a foreign country. It wasn’t until 2011 that Donald Trump picked up that bizarre torch and ran with it, only to finally drop it in September when it was clearly a spent flame.

The same mainstream media that slammed Trump for his birther obsession has long failed to properly mention its origins in the “dark ops” wing of the 2008 Hillary campaign. As Britain’s Telegraph reported in 2011: In April 2008, “an anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.” The first lawsuit to make birther claims was filed by Phil Berg, a Democratic attorney and a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Hillary herself has dismissed claims that her campaign had anything to do with spreading the birther rumor. She told CNN that the suggestion was “ludicrous,” saying, “I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me.” But the Clintons rarely leave fingerprints of their own involvement in skullduggery. Last September, former McClatchy Newspapers Washington bureau chief James Asher revealed the role that Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal played in stirring up the birther scandal. “He strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya,” said Asher, who at the time was McClatchy’s investigative editor and in charge of Africa reporting. “We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.”

Denials of the Clintons’ involvement in the original birther controversy come from the same aides who denied that their candidate had personally approved trolling against the Trump campaign even though an undercover video by James O’Keefe confirmed that. Other O’Keefe videos showed that operatives linked to Hillary’s campaign paid people to disrupt Trump rallies and plan voter-fraud schemes.

None of this excuses Trump’s decision in 2011 to stoke the birther controversy and demand a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. (“But I will tell you this. If he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the great scams of all time.”)

Trump’s attacks clearly irked Obama, and in April 2011, Obama released a copy of the long-form version of his Hawaii birth certificate. The annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner was three days later, and Obama knew that Trump would be in attendance as a guest of the Washington Post. Obama made a point of strolling onto the stage to the strains of Rick Derringer’s “Real American” and later “revealing” his “long-form birth video,” which ended up being a clip from The Lion King. Obama then proceeded to fillet Trump like a master sushi chef:

I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is happier — no one is prouder — to put this birth certificate issue to rest, and that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter: Like, Did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?

Stopping The Global Jihad: Why Is The U.S. Failing? The hope that a President Trump represents. Jeff Ludwig

This writer is one of the numbed masses of people who have spent their entire adult lives witnessing mass atrocity after mass atrocity committed against Americans around the world and on U.S. soil by evil persons acting in the name of Allah. Actually, attacks by militant Islamists on Americans go all the way back to the administrations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Those attacks on American ships and sailors off the coast of what is today Libya were finally stopped by the Marines led by Stephen Decatur. Fast forward to World War I. At that time, the U.S. joined with Britain and France to fight against, and defeat, the aggression of the Central Powers of Europe that were allied with the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Only after that victory was this last caliphate dismantled into the various Islamic nation-states we now find in the Middle East.

The post-World War I decades have seen the expansion of Arab oil wealth and continued internecine quarrels within the divided Arab world. Further, Islamist aggression internally and against the West – nay, against the entire world — has not only continued but grown exponentially with each passing decade since 1918.

During October 1983, 241 U.S. troops were massacred in Lebanon by Hezbollah (as well as 58 French troops at a different location). President Reagan, for many citizens the very incarnation of the warrior spirit, nonetheless, by Feb. 1984 withdrew all remaining U.S. troops from Lebanon. Thirty years later, relatives of the soldiers killed in that attack were awarded $2.65 billion in reparations in a lawsuit against Iran, but have yet to see any of that money. At the same time, President Obama has negotiated a deal with Iran releasing $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets to Iran from various financial institutions as part of a new so-called detente with that malignant terrorist nation. And, by the way, Iran is still on our State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Fast forward to 1996, thirteen years later, part of a housing complex where Americans lived in Khobar, Saudi Arabia was bombed by a truck carrying the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT. On that occasion “only” 19 Americans were killed. After intense investigation, again Hezbollah and Iran were blamed for the bombing by a U.S. court; however, payments were not made to the affected U.S. citizens. It took 20 years before the mastermind of this attack was arrested, raising many suspicions about whether or not there has been a partial or total cover-up.