Displaying posts published in

November 2018

AT’s Richard Baehr explains what happened on November 6 VIDEO

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/ats_richard_baehr_explains_what_happened_on_novemebr_6.html

I was not able to attend this year’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, but I heard from a lot of people about the presentation that our chief political correspondent Richard Baehr was a real highlight. He had the unenviable task of following the speech kicking off the program given by Victor Davis Hanson, and did a smashing job of it. He was the lead speaker on what was called the “all-star panel” analyzing the election results.

The other participants, Pat Caddell, Chris Buskirk (editor of American Greatness) and Daniel Greenfield, are among the smartest political thinkers of our time.

Watch for yourself. Richard, as always, cites data in his analysis, and sees things escaping most people.

Toward a Stronger U.S.–Mexico Relationship By Reihan Salam

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/us-mexico-relationship-partnership-immigration-amnesty/

One of my pet causes is promoting a stronger, more constructive partnership with Mexico, and the Central American migrant caravans offer a perfect illustration of why it’s so important. Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador is an avowed leftist, and it is natural that U.S. conservatives would be wary of him. But his desire to improve life for ordinary Mexicans is very much aligned with the U.S. interest in reducing unauthorized immigration, as is his stated commitment to creating opportunities for Central American migrants in Mexico. That is why I strongly believe the Trump administration ought to work closely with the incoming López Obrador government. By discouraging non-meritorious asylum claims, which have surged in recent years, the “Remain in Mexico” plan that is currently being discussed by U.S. and Mexican officials would greatly alleviate the current migration crisis.

The problem, however, is that while Remain in Mexico would clearly redound to the benefit of the U.S., it is essential that Mexicans feel as though they’re benefiting as well. And that is why I’d love to see President Trump offer something tangible to López Obrador that could cement a long-term deal.

What is it that that López Obrador’s government might want from the U.S.? For now, let’s leave aside practical considerations, such as, ahem, finding a proposal that Democrats in the House would be willing to pass and President Trump would be willing to sign. Because, well, we’re in the ideas business, people — and because political realities can change unexpectedly, so it never hurts to think big.

Elsewhere, I’ve argued that we ought to allow U.S. retirees to make use of their Medicare benefits in Mexico. Doing so could both reduce the cost to U.S. taxpayers of caring for older Americans who’d benefit from a lower cost of living, including lower-cost medical and custodial care, and generate low- and mid-skill employment in Mexico by fueling the growth of a labor-intensive eldercare sector. (Unbeknownst to me, Walter Russell Mead, the distinguished historian and Wall Street Journal foreign-affairs columnist, made this case in testimony before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Economic Policy last year.) This could prove a huge boon to Mexico and, as such, it would be a powerful inducement to cooperate with U.S. immigration-enforcement efforts.

Democrats Stand With Foreign Rioters They challenge the use of teargas by border patrol agents under attack. Michael Cutler

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272073/democrats-stand-foreign-rioters-michael-cutler

The news footage of the thousands of members of the “migrant” caravan showed young men throwing rocks at U.S. Border Patrol agents and attempting to charge the U.S./Mexican border. The Border Patrol agents were clearly under attack and had only two courses of action to take. The beleaguered agents could step aside or even retreat and permit their positions to be overrun by hundreds or even thousands of illegal aliens among whom are likely criminals, gang members and even those affiliated with terrorism, who would then disperse into the United States where the abject lack of resources would enable them to meld into communities across the country, particularly those jurisdictions that have been proclaimed “Sanctuary Cities.” Alternatively, they could stand their ground and defend the border to prevent the illegal and un-inspected entry of these invaders. In order to protect themselves, however, these agents would need to deploy either lethal or less-than-lethal force.

We all know that the Border Patrol opted to deploy teargas, a less-than-lethal force, that succeeded in repelling the attempted breach of our border, although it was reported that approximately 50 aliens did manage to enter the United States, but were quickly apprehended and taken into custody by the Border Patrol.

It would certainly appear that the agents demonstrated discipline, restraint and professionalism in managing to bring a very dangerous situation under control without the loss of life. Incredibly, rather than commending these valiant federal agents, Democrats and members of the mainstream media have attacked the agents. They complained that these “asylum seeking migrants” should have been quickly processed and permitted to enter the United States. They complained bitterly that the use of teargas was wrong and had the potential to injure women and children who were in the front of the surging mob.

Trump Didn’t Create Europe’s Resentment He just refuses to tolerate its arrogant elites. Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272071/trump-didnt-create-europes-resentment-bruce-thornton

Speaking in Paris at the centenary of the Armistice, French president Emmanuel Macron made some silly comments about nationalism. Recycling tired clichés about nationalism’s guilt for both World Wars, he called nationalism the “betrayal of patriotism” and warned about the “old demons coming back to wreak chaos and death.”

Apart from the ideological prejudices and historical ignorance on display from a globalist watching the “rules-based international order” tottering even as he speaks, Macron was also aiming his barbs at President Trump, who identifies himself as a proud nationalist. Macron punctuated his point by later calling for the creation of an “EU army” because “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

For NeverTrump globalists from both parties, a scolding from a European, even one accompanied by preposterous threats, is the QED of their indictment of Trump’s numerous offenses. But contrary to such naïve admiration, long before Donald Trump, the European ruling elite, especially the French, have looked on the U.S. with resentment, contempt, and envy.

The history of just the last 27 years illustrates how little Trump has to do with European attitudes towards America. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Europe and its dreams of ever-closer integration into a larger transnational federation was a few years away. Suddenly there was geopolitical space for a new “superpower” freed from the old Cold War strictures. Though belonging to NATO and a committed ally of the U.S., increasingly by the early 90s the European elite often appeared to comprise a “non-aligned” movement committed to peace and global development. It also was open to transcending the old, Manichean communist-capitalist dichotomy that had long fretted European communists and socialists, not to mention more recent leftist parties like the Greens. Even before the collapse of the Soviets, “third way” alternatives were touted such as “Eurocommunism,” or frauds like “communism with a human face” were proposed and implemented. Of course, the Warsaw Pact peoples living under communism knew every human face had a boot eternally stamping it.

Where Can Asia Bibi Go? Only two places left where she might be safe. Hugh Fitzgerald

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272088/where-can-asia-bibi-go-hugh-fitzgerald

Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman who spent eight years on death row in a Pakistani jail, having been convicted of “blasphemy” on the testimony of Muslims, has at last been freed by a decision of the Pakistani Supreme Court. But her latest ordeal has only just begun, for she cannot possibly live safely in Pakistan, where massive crowds have been calling for her to be executed and where, during this past year, two high officials of the government who had criticized her prosecution were, as a consequence, murdered by Muslim fanatics.

The United Kingdom has refused to offer Bibi asylum, prompted by fears of violence by Muslims. The UK high commissioner in Islamabad is reported to have warned he could not protect his staff if asylum were granted by the UK. This led the Foreign Office, in turn, to ask the Home Office not to grant Asia Bibi’s request. And there was another fear as well. That was the concern that if Bibi were granted asylum by Her Majesty’s Government, Muslims could well riot in the U.K. itself.

In a demonstration of widespread pusillanimity, no country has yet stepped forward to offer this woman asylum.

So where can Asia Bibi go? There are two places where she just might be safe.

The first is the United States, where she could be offered not just asylum, but a place in the Witness Protection Program. Between 1971 and 2013 (the latest year for which figures are available), that Program has successfully protected 8,500 people (“witnesses”), along with 9,900 family members. The American government is unlikely to be worried about possible Muslim unrest should Asia Bibi be given asylum. While Muslims in the UK make up 5% of the population, in the US they make up only 1%, where, likely as a consequence, they are better behaved. The U.S is also 40 times bigger than the U.K. Should Asia Bibi come here, there’s more room to disappear in, with a government that has a ready network of safe houses, new identities, and, if need be, plastic surgery.

The second place where Asia Bibi should consider requesting asylum is the Vatican. By doing so, Asia Bibi would be putting the islamophilic Pope Francis on the spot. He who has been insisting that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” would be confronted with the reality of a Christian woman who, living in a Muslim land, falsely accused by Muslim coworkers of blasphemy against Muhammad, was sentenced to death. After spending eight years of her life in prison waiting for that sentence to be carried out, she was finally acquitted by the Pakistani Supreme Court. Two high-ranking Pakistani officials who had criticized the prosecution of Asia Bibi, the Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer, and the Minority Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, were both assassinated as a result.

Switzerland: “Creeping EU Accession” by Soeren Kern

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13359/switzerland-eu-accession

The EU has now increased the pressure by resorting to blackmail: Brussels is making its recognition of Switzerland’s SIX Swiss Exchange, the fourth-largest stock market in Europe, contingent on Swiss acceptance of the framework agreement.

The measure was opposed by a coalition of Swiss business groups, which convincingly argued that it was a question of economics and access to international markets for the export-dependent country. “Ultimately, it is about maintaining prosperity in Switzerland and keeping the companies and jobs here,” said Monika Rühl, director of the business group Economiesuisse.

“The SVP rejects a one-sided submission to EU institutions, aimed at establishing an institutional connection of Switzerland to the EU apparatus, with a dynamic EU legal takeover and, ultimately, the subordination of Switzerland to the EU Court of Justice. A dynamic adoption of EU law would be another massive erosion of our direct democracy.” — Swiss People’s Party.

Swiss voters have resoundingly rejected a referendum calling for the Swiss Constitution to take precedence over international treaties and law.

Two-thirds (66.2%) of voters in the November 25 referendum opposed the “self-determination” initiative, put forward by the eurosceptic Swiss People’s Party (Schweizerische Volkspartei, SVP), the largest party in the Swiss parliament.

SVP leaders had argued that the new law was necessary to safeguard national sovereignty from further encroachment by supranational organizations such as the European Union and the United Nations.

The Swiss government countered that the proposal would undermine Switzerland’s economic stability as it would require Bern to amend existing bilateral agreements with the EU, the country’s largest trade partner, to bring them into compliance with the Swiss Constitution.

The proposal’s defeat comes ahead of pending decisions by the Swiss government over whether to sign a wide-ranging EU “framework agreement,” and a controversial UN “migration pact.”