Displaying posts published in

2016

The first major defeat of political correctness : Fiamma Nirenstein

The chronically guilty mind (it is believed) becomes attached to guilt as a badge of inherent superiority,” writes the psychoanalyst Deborah Tyler in The American Thinkerwhere she examines the psychodynamics of Obama and Hillary Clinton’s politics.

It was fatal for them. In general, recognizing one’s own faults and therefore one’s limits is a springboard for overcoming problems caused not only by ourselves, but also by others.

Trump, a man quite devoted to self-admiration and to the glorification of his actions, make us feel a little worried when he points his finger at Hispanics, immigrants, Islamic terrorists… And yet this was one of the basic tenets of his presidential campaign to move away from the guilt propagated by the Obama administration as the basis of American policy, which imbued its internal and external ethics.

Guilty, responsible, sons and fathers who all share the blame: Americans couldn’t stomach feeling this any longer, geez, given the multitude of troubles they already have.

We are all accustomed to fustigating ourselves: the war? We cynically chose it. Drone strikes? We don’t know if they kill innocent civilians. Immigrants? They’re the result of our imperialist policy. Islamic terrorism? A result of the ideological and social discrimination called Islamophobia that we’ve directed at Muslims; Racial and ethnic inequality, especially between whites and diverse groups? The effect of our racism that always in turn leads to discrimination, violence, and police brutality; sexism and homophobia? These are all vices of capitalist society vis-à-vis a peaceful and innocent world, a left wing world that doesn’t harbor prejudices (and the reverse is true); pollution, climate change, and adulterated foods? The upshot of fierce exploitative policies, including refrigerators, heating, longer life expectancy and a general improvement with regard to living conditions.

Whatever kind of president Donald Trump will be, there are many social and cultural reasons that have decreed an end to the control of the democratic elite associated with Obama’s Chicago-style politics. That said, we must consider the explosion of anger that people wanted to express while sweating, working, fuming and hearing over and over that they are guilty, plus all the dogmas of a political correctness that crucifies them to historical slavery, which forces them to consider themselves responsible for all the troubles of the world, a public danger, a colonial invader instead of that great American friend who runs to the rescue back when it defeated Nazism and many other evils at the cost of so many lives.

And what the heck! Can the leading thinker be Oliver Stone, who has rewritten America’s history by claiming that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed for futile reasons, that Truman was insane because of his unresolved “gender issues,” that Kennedy was killed by the Republicans because he wouldn’t go to war with the USSR… Gradually, we arrive up to the 9/11 attacks as self-inflicted by America upon itself.

The Pendulum Swings Leftward for the Democrats – And That’s Good News for Donald Trump

1. The Parties and the Pendulum

For the Democrats, the news is bad—and it’s about to get worse. Why? Because the ideological pendulum is swinging the Democrats to a far-left place, and a political party doesn’t win from the wings.

To be sure, no ideological swing is permanent, but for the next four years, it seems likely that the Democrats will push themselves leftward, to un-electability at the presidential level.

I’ll get to this pendulum-swinging in a moment, but first, let’s establish the current partisan baseline: In addition to Donald Trump winning the White House, the House Republicans will have 238 seats in the next Congress, and Senate Republicans will have 51. Meanwhile, out in the states, the GOP will control 33 governorships and 67 legislative chambers.

To further illustrate the hole that the Democrats find themselves in, here’s a chart from The Washington Post, which shows that in the last eight years, Democrats have lost 10.2 percent of their Senate seats, 19.3 percent of their House seats, 20.3 percent of their legislatures, and 35.7 percent of their governorships. We can add: These are the lowest Democratic numbers since 1928.

In the caustic words of Post reporter Philip Bump, “That whistling sound you hear is the party Thelma-and-Louise-ing.” Movie fans will recognize that as a reference to the ending scene in the 1991 movie Thelma and Louise, in which the title characters drive off a cliff, plunging to their death.

So what happened? It seemed like only yesterday that the MSM, and the chattering classes overall, were certain that Hillary Clinton was destined for a decisive victory, possibly even a landslide. Yet now, not so much.

So today, the Democrats have something they didn’t particularly wish for: the opportunity for an “agonizing reassessment.” The problem is that such reassessments don’t always end up improving the situation—sometimes they make things worse.

As former CNN pundit Bill Schneider liked to say, an election defeat gives the losing party a chance to “fix” whatever went wrong. The big question, of course, is, “What needs fixing?” And now the post-mortem “autopsy” reports as to the needed fix are coming, one might say, fast and furious.

To be sure, a few Hillary loyalists declare that their woman lost because of “sexism,” or some other retrograde “-ism.” Many more Clintonites blame FBI Director James Comey; shadowy Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal has gone so far as to claim that the election was a “coup d’etat” staged by “a cabal of right-wing agents of the FBI in the New York office attached to Rudy Giuliani.” Okay, so that’s the thinking of a few Clintonite dead-enders.

Meanwhile, most Democrats, and their barely-undercover allies in the MSM, are coming around to the view that Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate. Here, for example, is the analysis of Politico’s Glenn Thrush, writing that the failure of Clinton’s campaign was:

…proof that a conventional candidate can do practically everything by the numbers (win debates, raise the most cash, assemble the greatest data and voter outreach effort in history) and still fall to a movement impelled by raw emotion, not calculation.

MY SAY: FORGET HANGING CHADS

Not that many years ago one went to vote. One found the district. One stood and waited until the 107-year-old volunteers (bless them) found your name, and then you entered a booth, drew a curtain behind you and pressed little levers for your choices.

Now, for inexplicable reasons, you get a two-sided paper with little circles above each candidate that one must fill. You do this while standing behind a three-sided booth. Then you take this paper, covered by a manila folder, to another centenarian who removes the manila folder and tells you to place your paper in a scanner. Mine came back because the little circles were not filled in. Back to the first booth where you correct your error after waiting on line for an available booth, and then it is back to the scanner which, after a wait with your paper exposed to nosy onlookers, eats your paper of choices.

Where my sons vote six scanners were out of order and the wait was interminable. I was lucky. The younger volunteers, in their late eighties, recognized another superannuated woman and ushered me through.

Why did they replace an efficient system where you could do your patriotic duty in minutes behind the curtain with one that crowds the room with perplexed people wandering back and forth seeking the right booth and then the right scanner? I’ll never know. When I voted for Grover Cleveland it was so easy.

But why complain? My candidate won.

Hillary Clinton Won the Illegal Vote Written by: Diana West

About that popular vote victory the Left is claiming over Donald Trump.

The latest tallies show that after millions of Americans citizens, fraudsters and non-citizens voted for president, Donald Trump won 59,704,886 votes and Hillary Clinton won 59,938,290.

That’s 233,304 more votes in Hillary’s column. But is this margin of popular victory the will of legally registered American voters?

In 2014, three political scientists from Old Dominion University and George Mason University looked back at earlier elections to study whether any of an estimated 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the US voted in the 2008 election. After much surveying, sampling and extrapolating, their best guess — the “adjusted estimate” — was to suggest that a whopping 1.2 million non-citizens cast ballots, and cast mainly Democrat ballots, in the 2008 election that brought Barack Obama into the White House.

The impact of such fraud, they write, included the following:

We find that there is reason to believe non-citizen voting changed one state’s Electoral College votes in 2008, delivering North Carolina to Obama, and that non-citizen votes have also led to Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race [Al Franken’s] that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

No doubt there remains number-crunching to do on the 2016 election, especially when it comes to states and districts that were won by narrow margins of victory. It seems eminently fair, however, to deduce that Clinton’s margin of popular victory, typically and fittingly, was illegal.

Trump’s Triumph Is One for the Ages Voters just saved America from disaster, and for that they should be thanked. By Deroy Murdock

Congratulations to President-elect Donald J. Trump.

Never having run for so much as city council, he tried his hand at politics and, in his very first campaign, scored Earth’s most powerful office. He did so by beating the amalgamated might of the Clinton and Obama machines — two of the most capable and accomplished political operations in U.S. history.

Trump did this while enduring the constant, scorching hostility of Hollywood, Broadway, and nearly the entire popular culture. He also survived a relentless headwind of scathing media coverage. Atop their brutal dispatches, some 430 “objective” journalists, the Center for Public Integrity reports, donated $381,814 (96.3 percent) to Clinton and $14,373 (3.6 percent) to Trump between January 1, 2015 and August 30, 2016.

Trump and his supporters were accused of hate, even as unhinged Leftists graffitied “Kill your local Trump supporter” in Boston, demolished with a pickaxe his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and subjected Republican party offices to vandalism and even arson.

Trump won, even though numerous Republican party elders, sitting officials, conservative activists, and center-Right intellectuals treated him with attitudes ranging from aloofness to the boundless, searing, ultimately baffling disgust of Never Trump. Party unity is usually a given for presidential nominees. Trump landed on top without it.

Trump also conquered on the cheap. He spent $270 million for his 59.8 million votes while Hillary poured $521 million into her 60 million ballots. That equals $4.51 per Trump vote versus $8.68 per Clinton ballot.

Agree or disagree with Trump, his relatively inexpensive defeat of these forces is a truly staggering accomplishment.

This stunned his supporters as much as anyone else.

When Fox News Channel declared at 2:40 a.m. that Trump secured Pennsylvania and, thus, the White House, hundreds of Young Republicans at Manhattan’s Turnmill Bar exploded with glee. They seemed as astonished as they were thrilled.

“I can’t believe this is happening!” one Trumpnik screamed with joy.

I’m a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump. By Asra Q. Nomani

Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. She can be found on Twitter at @AsraNomani.

A lot is being said now about the “silent secret Trump supporters.”

This is my confession — and explanation: I — a 51-year-old, a Muslim, an immigrant woman “of color” — am one of those silent voters for Donald Trump. And I’m not a “bigot,” “racist,” “chauvinist” or “white supremacist,” as Trump voters are being called, nor part of some “whitelash.”

In the winter of 2008, as a lifelong liberal and proud daughter of West Virginia, a state born on the correct side of history on slavery, I moved to historically conservative Virginia only because the state had helped elect Barack Obama as the first African American president of the United States.

But, then, for much of this past year, I have kept my electoral preference secret: I was leaning toward Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Tuesday evening, just minutes before the polls closed at Forestville Elementary School in mostly Democratic Fairfax County, I slipped between the cardboard partitions in the polling booth, a pen balanced carefully between my fingers, to mark my ballot for president, coloring in the circle beside the names of Trump and his running mate, Mike Pence.

After Hillary Clinton called Trump to concede, making him America’s president-elect, a friend on Twitter wrote a message of apology to the world, saying there are millions of Americans who don’t share Trump’s “hatred/division/ignorance.” She ended: “Ashamed of millions that do.”

That would presumably include me — but it doesn’t, and that is where the dismissal of voter concerns about Clinton led to her defeat. I most certainly reject the trifecta of “hatred/division/ignorance.” I support the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage and climate change.

But I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare. The president’s mortgage-loan modification program, “HOPE NOW,” didn’t help me. Tuesday, I drove into Virginia from my hometown of Morgantown, W.Va., where I see rural America and ordinary Americans, like me, still struggling to make ends meet, after eight years of the Obama administration.

Finally, as a liberal Muslim who has experienced, first-hand, Islamic extremism in this world, I have been opposed to the decision by President Obama and the Democratic Party to tap dance around the “Islam” in Islamic State. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric has been far more than indelicate and folks can have policy differences with his recommendations, but, to me, it has been exaggerated and demonized by the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their media channels, such as Al Jazeera, and their proxies in the West, in a convenient distraction from the issue that most worries me as a human being on this earth: extremist Islam of the kind that has spilled blood from the hallways of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai to the dance floor of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

In mid-June, after the tragic shooting at Pulse, Trump tweeted out a message, delivered in his typical subtle style: “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

Europe’s Planned Migrant Revolution by Yves Mamou

Between 2005 to 2014, Germany welcomed more than 6,000,000 people.

Two essential questions about integration must be put on the table: 1) What do we ask of newcomers? And 2) What do we do to those who do not accept our conditions? In Europe, these two questions of integration were never asked of anyone.

In the new migrant order, the host population is invited to make room for the newcomer and bear the burden not of what is an “integration,” but the acceptance of a coerced coexistence.

“No privileges are granted to the Europeans or to their heritage. All cultures have the same citizenship. There is no recognition of a substantial European culture that it might be useful to preserve.” — Michèle Tribalat, sociologist and demographer.

“We need people that we welcome to love France.” — French Archbishop Pontier, Le Monde, October 2016.

When “good feelings” did not work, however, the authorities have often criminalized and prosecuted anti-immigration critics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders is currently on trial for trying to defend his country from Moroccan immigrants whose skyrocketing crime wave has been transforming the Netherlands.

Everyone now knows — even German Chancellor Angela Merkel — that she committed a political mistake in opening the doors of her country to more than a million migrants from the the Middle East, Africa and Asia. It was, politically, a triple mistake:

Merkel may have thought that humanitarian motives (the war in Syria and Iraq, the refugee problem) could help Germany openly pursue a migration policy that was initially launched and conducted in the shadows.

Trump Faces Battle to Undo Iran Nuclear Deal Leaders in Europe and Russia committed to agreement with Tehran could dilute president-elect’s vow to dismantle it By Jay Solomon

WASHINGTON—Donald Trump as president will be positioned to swiftly pull the U.S. out of the Obama administration’s landmark nuclear agreement with Iran, as he suggested during his campaign.

A much harder task for Mr. Trump, however, is to convince other global powers to join him and dismantle a deal that President Barack Obama says has diminished the threat of another war in the Mideast and opened a path for reduced tensions in the region.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump said the Obama administration negotiated badly. He alternately said he would scrap the deal and that he would renegotiate its terms. “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March.

Tehran has been found to have briefly violated its pledges twice since the deal was reached in mid-2015, according to U.S. and European officials. Yet international commitment to the agreement remains strong, and the parties who negotiated it—China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.—have pledged to promote it.

European Union foreign ministers are set to reiterate on Monday their strong support for the full implementation of the accord.

The Iran deal isn’t a treaty, wasn’t formally signed, and wasn’t ratified by the U.S. Congress. It was approved by the United Nations Security Council, but not under procedures that obligate member states to observe its terms under threat of penalty.

Any partner—including Iran—could summarily cease to stick to the agreement, which resulted in Tehran scaling back its nuclear capabilities in return for the lifting of most international sanctions.

“The agreement is valid only as long as all parties uphold it,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday.

Many of the deal’s terms already have gone into effect. As part of the agreement, Iran has reaped billions of dollars in repayments of money held up by the West during years of sanctions, and has resumed trade with other countries in transportation, aviation and energy. The benefits it already has garnered couldn’t be pulled back, diplomats and experts have said.

Tehran, in return, already has shipped out most of its stockpile of enriched uranium and mothballed thousands of centrifuge machines. CONTINUE AT SITE

A Keystone Resurrection Trump should drop his royalties demand and revive this job creator.

Donald Trump promised in his victory speech Tuesday that he will “rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none.” Allow us to suggest a great place to start: Approving the Keystone XL pipeline that President Obama rejected to satisfy his climate friends.

TransCanada’s Keystone could carry some 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to Nebraska, and the company said in a statement this week that it is “fully committed” to building the pipeline. TransCanada said that it is “evaluating ways to engage the new administration on the benefits, the jobs and the tax revenues this project brings to the table.”

In 2015 TransCanada withdrew its route application after seven years of haggling with the Obama Administration, which rejected the pipeline despite favorable environmental reviews from its own State Department. President Obama said that approving Keystone would undercut U.S. “global leadership” on climate change. In other words, the President wanted leverage at the Paris climate drum circle—and Keystone would enrage Democratic campaign donors like Tom Steyer.

TransCanada has challenged the decision in federal court, and it is unclear if the company would be forced to restart the application process. Mr. Trump said in his campaign that he’d approve Keystone, but has also demanded royalty payments, a demand he should drop. By the company’s estimates the pipeline would add $3 billion to GDP, including millions in property taxes and create more than 40,000 jobs. Cost to taxpayers? $0.

Keystone fulfills several of Mr. Trump’s ostensible goals, including energy exploration. The pipeline could carry 100,000 barrels a day from North Dakota, which would encourage more development. And no one benefits more than America: 70% of refined products pumped through Keystone would stay in the U.S., according to a report last year from IHS, and that means consumers will enjoy lower prices. By the way, environmental objections were always bogus: Pipelines emit less carbon than rail systems and result in fewer spills. CONTINUE AT SITE

Tuesday’s Election Will Set Unhappy Union Workers Free Voters ousted the party that blocks right-to-work laws—and Trump will fill the Supreme Court. By Chantal Lovell and F. Vincent Vernuccio

One of the most intriguing political shifts Tuesday was Donald Trump’s relative popularity with union members. Exit polls show that Hillary Clinton did not win union households in nearly the numbers that President Obama did in 2012. Although major unions like the AFL-CIO supported Mrs. Clinton, millions in the rank and file didn’t. Mr. Trump’s victory should provide hope to any union members alienated by their increasingly out-of-touch leaders.

Best of all, growing numbers of these workers have the right to decide that they don’t want to support a union that doesn’t represent them. Twenty-six states now have right-to-work laws, which bar unions from getting workers fired for not paying union dues. Similar legislation might be on the way after Republicans’ sweeping victory on Tuesday. Even more consequential could be Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. If the president-elect makes good on his promise to choose constitutionalists, the court could enshrine right-to-work protections for every government employee in the country.

Start with the states where right-to-work bills have been blocked by Democrats. Last year the Missouri legislature passed one with strong majorities: 92-66 in the House and 21-13 in the Senate. But Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, claiming that “it’s wrong for the middle class and it must never become the law of the Show-Me State.”

Term limits have ended Gov. Nixon’s tenure, and on Tuesday voters rejected his preferred successor. Instead they elected a Republican, Eric Greitens, who says he believes in right to work “because it would stop companies and union bosses from taking a cut of your paycheck to support their political organization.”

The story in New Hampshire is similar. In 2011 the legislature tried to make the state right-to-work. Then-Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, vetoed the bill. A strong majority of the New Hampshire House tried to override the veto, 240-139, but they came up 12 votes short of the two-thirds needed. A similar bill didn’t make it through the legislature last year, though Gov. Maggie Hassan would have likely vetoed it anyway.

But on Tuesday the state elected a new Republican governor, Chris Sununu. “We haven’t brought a major business into the state in eight years,” he said earlier this year, adding that right to work could change that. If so, New Hampshire would be New England’s first right-to-work state.

In Kentucky right-to-work legislation died in the Democratic House last year, after it was passed by the Republican-dominated Senate. Yet now Republicans have taken full control of the legislature for the first time in nearly a century. The GOP flipped a whopping 17 of the state’s 100 House seats on its way to a 64-36 majority. In a postelection newspaper op-ed, Gov. Matt Bevin included right to work in his list of priorities for the next session.

At the Supreme Court the stakes are even higher, as Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association shows. The suit involves Rebecca Friedrichs, a California teacher who wants nothing to do with her union. She argues that being forced to financially support the government union violates her First Amendment rights. CONTINUE AT SITE