Displaying posts published in

June 2019

David Marcus: From Occupy To AOC: The Rise Of The New Progressives, Part 3 With the election of Donald Trump, the New Progressives seized their opportunity to turn protest into political power with a new star.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/05/from-occupy-to-aoc-the-rise-of-th

Entering The Halls Of Power

On January 21, 2017 Donald Trump woke up as president of the United States for the first time. In those morning hours, hundreds of thousands of protesters were making their way to Washington DC for the most significant protest since Occupy Wall Street, which had occurred roughly five years earlier. Donning pink p-ssy hats and dedicated to overthrowing the patriarchy, and Trump, the Women’s March took to the streets.

At the time it was presented as an organic outpouring of anti-Trump emotion. But we now know that it was not only carefully organized, but that the New Progressives were the march’s driving force and leadership. Its manifesto, among other things, promised intersectionality, and to break down systems of oppression.

Suddenly these concepts once limited to a few thousand in Zuccotti Park were being marched on by hundreds of thousands. That is not to say that all of these women and men supported the entire far-left agenda of the Women’s March. Rather, Trump’s election provided the New Progressives the opportunity to cast themselves as his opposite, and if Trump was the ultimate evil, that made them the ultimate good.

Indeed, even the Women’s March itself was accused of insufficient wokeness, as illustrated by a Washington Post headline just three days later that asked, “Was the Women’s March just another display of white privilege? Some think so.”

The irony of this is that the organizers, people like Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour, had pushed the march’s manifesto and goals so far left of center using the exactly the same justification as was used for the Occupy General Assembly’s progressive stack: the most marginalized must lead, white women were to take a back seat and listen. Just as with Occupy Wall Street, there was, at best, antipathy towards Israel, and at worst outright anti-Semitism.

Warren Says Combating Climate Change Is ‘A Bigger Challenge Than WWII’ Elizabeth Warren dished out a climate change agenda that is as improbable as it is expensive, then turned around and insulted WWII vets.By Susanna Hoffman

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/05/warren-says-combating-climate-change-is-a-bigger-challenge-than-wwii/

At a campaign event in Detroit, Michigan, on Tuesday, 2020 Democrat presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said that climate change is an even bigger challenge than World War II.

“America has faced huge challenges before, WWII and putting a man on the moon,” Warren said. “This environmental catastrophe bearing down on us may be the biggest challenge yet.”

Warren’s disconcerting comparison to WWII must mean her plans to prevent climate change are drastic indeed. To handle this global threat, Warren weirdly implies we must have to mobilize a greater American industrial base than was in place during WWII, as well as more scientific innovation and resources than required to put a man on the moon.

This is Warren’s pitch for her Green Manufacturing Plan, which is part of her commitment to the Green New Deal that Democrats across the board have pledged to support. According to her website, Warren is looking at a 10-year plan to invest $2 trillion into an expected $23 trillion market for clean energy technology. This investment will help us “achieve the ambitious targets of the Green New Deal,” Warren wrote on her website.

Will Mueller’s Testimony Make a Difference? By Matthew Continetti

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/robert-muellers-testimony-will-it-make-difference/

Plenty of Democrats, and more than a few Republicans, would like to see Robert Mueller testify before Congress despite the special counsel’s reluctance to appear. Each party has its reasons. Democrats want to score political points by re-litigating Mueller’s report on national television. Republicans want to ask him about when, exactly, he knew there was no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and about the origins of the investigation itself.

Some liberals go further. They say Mueller’s testimony might have a galvanizing effect on public opinion, and help convince voters that President Trump should be impeached. “If history is any guide,” writes Steve Benen at MSNBC, “the more Americans are confronted with damaging details about the president’s alleged misdeeds, the more the polls are likely to shift.”

Count me skeptical. While there have been slight ups and downs, for the most part polling on impeachment has been stable. The public continues to oppose it.

For example: In the November CNN exit poll, 40 percent of voters were for impeachment. After the release of the Mueller report, the debate over its findings, and Mueller’s press conference last week, CNN’s most recent poll of adults has support for impeachment at . . . 41 percent.

Mexico Is an Asylum Free-Rider By Mark Krikorian

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/mexico-asylum-policy-hypocrisy/

It embraces an expansive definition of asylum, then passes the buck by waving asylum-seekers northward.

President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on Mexican goods starting next week may or may not get Mexico to be more cooperative in preventing third-country “asylum-seekers” from passing through on the way to our border. I’m not too concerned about the costs that such a tariff would impose on U.S. businesses and consumers (which would be real), because the costs would be worth it if the tactic were actually to work. I’m skeptical it will, since Mexico always has a chip on its shoulder with regard to us. But recent signs suggest I might be pleasantly surprised. Here’s hoping.

Perhaps more important than the means, however, are the desired ends. During a call with reporters last week, acting DHS secretary Kevin McAleenan laid out three specific steps the administration wants Mexico to take. First is tightening security on Mexico’s border with Guatemala and chokepoints in southern Mexico (such as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec). Second is targeting the smuggling organizations; as McAleenan said, “The logistical effort to move 100,000 people through a country every four weeks is immense. This is noticeable.”

Mexico might well agree to these two demands, potentially averting the tariffs. But the third demand is the most consequential, and the most difficult. As McAleenan put it, “We need to be able to protect people in the first safe country they arrive in — really, all through the hemisphere, but certainly with our partner to the south.” In other words, the administration wants Mexico to sign a “safe third country” agreement, whereby foreigners who pass through Mexico would not be permitted even to apply for asylum at the U.S. border, and Mexico would agree to take them back, because if they were genuinely fleeing persecution, they should have applied in the first safe country they reached. As Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation wrote last fall about one of the migrant caravans, “ignoring Mexico’s asylum process is prima facie evidence that a claim for asylum in the U.S. is bogus.”

9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress By Matt Margolis

https://pjmedia.com/trending/9-times-the-obama-administration-fought-subpoenas-or-blocked-officials-from-testifying-before-congress/

After the long and thorough, and, of course, incredibly expensive Mueller investigation, Democrats were left distraught over a lack of any crime to justify going forward with impeachment. In the wake of the Mueller Report, they’ve since promised new investigations in the hopes of finding some crime to justify putting the country through a process that most don’t want us to go through just because Democrats haven’t gotten over the 2016 election. In recent weeks, stories about subpoenas being challenged and Trump officials being instructed not testify have been saturating the news and being presented as evidence of further obstruction. Most notably, Attorney General Barr faces a forthcoming vote of contempt in the House for not wanting to be a part of the Democrats’ witch hunt.

It seems as good a time as any to remind Democrats that we know their outrage is phony and that we know this is just pandering to their base who wants to see them “resist, resist, resist” at all costs. So, I’ve compiled nine examples of fights over subpoenas or testimony during the Obama years. The point here is that fights between the executive branch and the legislative branch over executive privilege are nothing new. Despite the rhetoric that the Trump administration’s fighting back against Democrat witchhunts being unprecedented, Barack Obama spent eight years fighting with Congress over their exercising their rights to oversight.

D-Day By the Numbers, By the Men By Stephen Green J

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/d-day-by-the-numbers-by-the-men/

I want you to imagine picking up every resident of a medium-sized city, everything they’ll need to eat and drink and rest for a few days, any vehicles they might need, gasoline of course, plus lots of guns and ammo — did I mention this was a hunting trip? — and then moving them all in a few short hours a distance of anywhere from 30 to 125 miles or so.

Now imagine you have to move all those people and all that stuff partly by air, but mostly across heavy seas in foul weather.

Under enemy fire.

I should also mention that if you messed up any of the big details, a lot of your people are going to die, and then you’re going to have to figure out how to move them all back without getting too many more of them killed.

And all that is just the beginning. Because once you’ve done all that, those men on that “hunting trip” are going to have to take and widen a beachhead big enough and secure enough that you can rebuild (or build from scratch!) the ports and roads necessary to bring another million men over… plus all additional the stuff all those additional men will need.

That, in a logistical nutshell, was what the Allies had to accomplish 75 years ago on D-Day.

Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, General Dwight Eisenhower said that “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” The planning which went into Operation Overlord boggles the mind.

Trump reads FDR prayer as Queen Elizabeth II, world leaders mark D-Day anniversary in Portsmouth

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/05/donald-trump-queen-elizabeth-75th-anniversary-d-day-invasion/1349585001/
PORTSMOUTH, England – On the final leg of his three-day state visit to Britain, President Donald Trump joined Queen Elizabeth II and leaders from around the world in paying respects to Allied service members who 75 years ago took part in the D-Day landings that helped liberate Europe from Nazi Germany’s military occupation.

The Normandy landings on June 6, 1944, were the largest land, air and sea invasion in history and Portsmouth Naval Base, near where the commemorations took place Wednesday, served as a key launch pad for those forces.

In an address, the queen said that “75 years ago, hundreds of thousands of young soldiers, sailors and airmen left these shores in the cause of freedom. In a broadcast to the nation at that time, my father, King George VI, said: ‘What is demanded from us all is something more than courage and endurance; we need a revival of spirit, a new unconquerable resolve.’ That is exactly what those brave men brought to the battle, as the fate of the world depended on their success.”

Earlier, in a special message to mark the occasion, the queen said: “At this time of reflection for veterans of the conflict and their families, I am sure that these commemorations will provide an opportunity to honor those who made extraordinary sacrifices to secure freedom in Europe. They must never be forgotten.”

In addition to Trump, the queen and Prime Minister Theresa May hosted 14 other leaders in Portsmouth, including France’s Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau. Prince Charles attended with representatives from every country that participated in the storming of the beaches along France’s northwestern coast in a surprise attack involving 5,000 ships, 11,000 airplanes and 150,000 soldiers. More than 4,000 Allied service members – more than half of them American – died in the assault credited with changing the course of the war.

The event featured a number of British and American veterans of the invasion. Their chests bore ribbons and medals and a few of them clutched canes. The story of the build-up to the battle was told through live music, performances and readings.

“We must never forget,” said D-Day veteran John Jenkins, 99, addressing a crowd of more than a thousand seated in folding chairs before an amphitheater-type stage. About 300 World War II veterans attended the ceremony on England’s south coast.

Mueller’s Sinking Reputation By Charles Lipson –

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/05/muellers_sinking_reputation_140493.html

Now that Robert Mueller has closed up shop as special counsel and shot off fireworks at his final press conference, the country can step back and assess the job he did. The results are decidedly mixed.

Mueller made two vital contributions. The first was an in-depth investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He concluded it was systematic and favored Donald Trump. The second was an intensive examination of possible coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign. He concluded that no charges were warranted against any Americans.

The country needed those investigations and Mueller deserves praise for conducting them. More ambiguous was his non-finding of obstruction against the president, which, predictably, has been subject to deep partisan divisions.

Mueller’s two-volume report leaves several big, unanswered questions, though Democrats and Republicans differ on what they are. Democrats, focusing on the second volume, firmly believe Trump interfered with Mueller’s probe. All want further investigations; some want impeachment. Since the Senate is unlikely to convict — the evidence is too thin to win a two-thirds majority — the Democrats’ practical goal is to damage Trump’s chances in 2020. Their political problem, well understood by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is that a doomed effort will hurt the Democrats even more.

Republicans reject the obstruction claims, noting that Trump provided millions of documents and gave Mueller unprecedented access to White House staff. Even if Mueller believed he could not indict a sitting president, he could have said the evidence justified it. He made no such statement, though he did list some instances that might be considered obstruction.

Republicans add three more serious charges against Mueller. First, his team was packed with partisan Democrats, many closely affiliated with Hillary Clinton and strongly biased against Trump. Second, the report itself was shoddy and unfair, they say. It relied heavily on news articles, omitted exculpatory evidence, failed to investigate the infamous “Steele dossier,” and never asked why, if Russians were trying to penetrate the Trump campaign, the candidate himself was not told by the FBI. Another serious charge — deliberate distortion of evidence — comes from president’s former attorney, John Dowd. He has shown the Mueller report edited one of his phone calls to change its meaning. Dowd is apoplectic, calling the report a “fraud.” Others will join him if additional distortions, misrepresentations, and omissions are found.

David Singer: Netanyahu will be Israel’s next Prime Minister – with Trump’s help

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/

The abrupt termination of Israel’s 21st Parliament with new elections being called for 17 September has seen the New York Times claiming that Israel has been plunged into unprecedented political chaos.

A more sober assessment – based on comparing Israel’s 2015 election results with the April 2019 results – provides a different picture – in which Prime Minister Netanyahu will be returned once again as Israel’s next Prime Minister.

In an earlier article written in March, I opined:

“The cards have certainly been stacked against Benjamin Netanyahu being Israel’s next Prime Minister after three recent major developments — but he is by no means down and out.”

Those developments were:

Israeli Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s decision to pursue Netanyahu for alleged criminal offences.
Three political parties coalescing into the Blue and White Party — promising that two of the three previous leaders — former Chief of Staff Benny Gantz and Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid — would each be Prime Minister for half of the next Government’s term of office.
Netanyahu’s role in precipitating a marriage of convenience between Jewish Home, National Union and an extreme right-wing party Otzma Yehudit with alleged links to the assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane’s banned political party Kach

I pointed out then that:

“The 2015 election results provide a useful guide as to the likely impact these three developments might have on Netanyahu’s chances:

the Likud Party only received 23.4% of the vote—hardly a ringing endorsement for Netanyahu and
72% of those eligible voted—very high when compared to America’s 58.1%.

Likud’s low supporter-base seems unlikely to desert Netanyahu.
Voter turnout would have to increase dramatically or huge swings away from other right-wing parties would be needed to give Blue and White the nod needed to be invited by President Rivlin to form a coalition Government ahead of Netanyahu.
The unknown elephants in the room are the number of terrorist attacks and international political developments affecting Israel in the next five weeks that will concentrate voters’ minds — when actually casting their votes – on who can best safeguard their personal safety and Israel’s security.
Netanyahu is certainly not out of the race”.

The Iranian-Palestinian Plan to Thwart Trump’s Peace Plan by Khaled Abu Toameh

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14324/iran-palestinians-trump-peace-plan

Iran’s support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad also needs to be seen in the context of Tehran’s effort to undermine Arab states that have close relations with the Trump administration.
By boycotting the US-led conference in Bahrain, Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have placed themselves in the same league as Iran — a country that despises them, deems them traitors and bankrolls their rivals, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, in the Gaza Strip.
Even so, Abbas and Palestinian Authority officials match Iran’s incendiary rhetoric of violence at the US administration and its “Deal of the Century” by denouncing it as a conspiracy against Arabs and Muslims.
Iran’s leaders have every reason to be satisfied with Abbas, whose every remark indirectly bolsters the Ayatollahs in their campaign to undermine any Arab and Muslim who wants to work with the US or make peace with Israel.

As the US administration prepares to roll out its long-awaited plan for peace in the Middle East, also known as the “Deal of the Century,” Iran appears to be increasing its efforts to help its allies in the region try to thwart the plan.

Recently, Iran seems to have stepped up its political and military support for radical Palestinian groups that are staunchly opposed to any peace agreement with Israel. These groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, do not recognize Israel’s right to exist and are publicly committed to its destruction and replacement by an Iranian-backed Islamic state.

Iran, of course, has long shared the same ambition of destroying Israel and has never hesitated to make its position known to the world. In several statements during the past few decades, Iranian leaders have been frank about their wish that Israel be “a one-bomb country.”