Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Yale Professor Makes Midterm Optional For Anyone Too Upset With The Election Results

A professor at Yale sent an email out during yesterday’s election coverage to students in the ECON 115 class excusing them from taking a midterm if they found themselves to be too distraught from the results of the election.

The email came after the professor received requests for extensions from some students that were in, “fear for their families.”

This happened at one of the most prestigious universities in the country.

These students will probably go on to be leaders in their chosen fields, and executives in major companies.

Basically run this country in twenty years.

So what does it tell you if they are unable to handle the outcome of an election?

Try not to laugh too hard reading this:

The battle over microaggressions going on at our universities is both a symptom and a cause of malaise and strife in society at large. By Daniel Shuchman

What’s Happened To The University?

By Frank Furedi
Routledge, 205 pages, $26.95
Rancorous trends such as microaggressions, safe spaces, trigger warnings and intellectual intolerance have taken hold at universities with breathtaking speed. Last year’s controversy over Halloween costumes at Yale led to the departure of two respected faculty members, and this year made the fall festival a flashpoint of conflict at campuses across the country. The recent explosion in the number of university administrators, coupled with an environment of perpetual suspicion—the University of Florida urges students to report on one another to its “Bias Education and Response Team”—drives students who need to resolve normal tensions in human interaction to instead seek intervention by mediators, diversity officers, student life deans or lawyers.

As Frank Furedi compellingly argues in this deeply perceptive and important book, these phenomena are not just harmless fads acted out by a few petulant students and their indulgent professors in an academic cocoon. Rather, they are both a symptom and a cause of malaise and strife in society at large. At stake is whether freedom of thought will long survive and whether individuals will have the temperament to resolve everyday social and workplace conflicts without bureaucratic intervention or litigation.

Mr. Furedi, an emeritus professor at England’s University of Kent, argues that the ethos prevailing at many universities on both sides of the Atlantic is the culmination of an infantilizing paternalism that has defined education and child-rearing in recent decades. It is a pedagogy that from the earliest ages values, above all else, self-esteem, maximum risk avoidance and continuous emotional validation and affirmation. (Check your child’s trophy case.) Helicopter parents and teachers act as though “fragility and vulnerability are the defining characteristics of personhood.”

The devastating result: Young people are raised into an “eternal dependency.” Parenting experts and educators insist that the views of all pupils must be unconditionally respected, never judged, regardless of their merit. They wield the unassailable power of a medical warning: Children, even young adults, simply can’t handle rejection of their ideas, or hearing ones that cause the slightest “discomfort,” lest they undergo “trauma.”

It is not surprising to Mr. Furedi that today’s undergraduates, having grown up in such an environment, should find any serious criticism, debate or unfamiliar idea to be “an unacceptable challenge to their personas.” He cites a legion of examples from across the Western world, but one Brown University student perhaps epitomizes the psyche: During a campus debate, she fled to a sanctioned “safe space” because “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs.”

The Great Progressive Repudiation Voters might like President Obama, but they have soundly rejected his agenda. By David French

A remarkable thing just happened. The presidential candidate that voters believe less, like less, and think less qualified won the election. In other words, rather than endure four more years of elite progressive rule, the American people chose to gamble on a reality-television star with well-known and openly notorious character flaws. That’s how much they were ready for change.

Let’s be very, very clear: This election ultimately wasn’t about defeating the “establishment.” It was about defeating the progressive establishment. The Republican establishment — the hated “GOPe” — ends this year with more power than it’s enjoyed in a century, and perhaps since Reconstruction. Mitch McConnell is more powerful. Paul Ryan is more powerful. The Republican party will control the White House, Congress, judicial nominations, and the vast majority of the states. The Republican party runs the United States.

The GOP presidential landslides of 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988 were inconsequential by comparison, resulting in divided government and with Democrats far more ascendant at the state level. By contrast, there is now a Republican governor of Vermont. And if you think that Trump carried down-ballot Republicans to victory, think again. He undoubtedly helped secure victories in states such as Indiana, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, but in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Wisconsin, the Republican Senate victor won more votes than Trump. In close losses like Nevada and (perhaps) New Hampshire, the GOP Senate candidate also out-polled Trump.

Tea-party Republicans won. Establishment center-right Republicans won. And they won not just because Republican voters turned out — GOP turnout wasn’t particularly heavy, and Trump is likely to win roughly the same number of votes that Romney did — but because Democrats stayed home by the millions.

In 2012, Mitt Romney received almost 61 million votes. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Donald Trump has slightly over 59 million votes. Clinton is winning the popular vote count by roughly 200,000 votes but has so far turned out 6.5 million fewer voters than Obama did. In other words, GOP voters kept voting while millions of Democrats voted with their feet — they walked anywhere but the polling place. In spite of an avalanche of apocalyptic anti-Trump rhetoric, an astonishing number of Democrats didn’t find Hillary Clinton or her progressive agenda worth lifting a finger (literally) to support.

Oil, Coal Seen as Winners With Donald Trump Victory Election win buoyed investors in fossil fuels while sending shares of wind and solar firms tumbling By Bradley Olson, John W. Miller and Lynn Cook

Donald Trump’s surprise victory fanned expectations in the energy industry that he would clear the path for new pipelines, end U.S. participation in global climate change pacts and undo environmental regulations to boost American coal mining.

The prospect that the president-elect would roll back years of Obama administration policies buoyed investors in fossil fuels companies Wednesday—while sending shares of top wind and solar power firms tumbling.

The S&P 500 Energy Sector Index was up about 1.5% overall midday to 517.28.

Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources Co., said Mr. Trump’s victory will perk up the country’s stagnant drilling boom by making it easier to build pipelines that unlock areas rich in oil and gas, such as the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

“His message about creating jobs is why he broke the blue wall” and attracted votes from Democrats in some states, Mr. Sheffield said.

Shares in Energy Transfer Equity L.P., the Dallas-based pipeline company building the hotly contested Dakota Access Pipeline, jumped 18% to $16.52 amid hopes that Mr. Trump will give a green light to the project.

The 1,170-mile pipeline linking the North Dakota oil fields and Texas has become mired in protests and extra environmental reviews by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because of its route across the Missouri River and lands considered culturally sensitive to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

An Energy Transfer spokeswoman said Wednesday that the company expects the pipeline to begin moving oil in the first quarter of 2017.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump invited TransCanada Corp., the Calgary-based company that proposed the transcontinental Keystone XL pipeline linking Canada’s oil sands to the Texas Gulf Coast, to reapply to build that project, which was rejected by the Obama administration in 2015 after seven years in regulatory limbo.

“TransCanada remains fully committed to building Keystone XL,” said company spokesman Mark Cooper. “We are evaluating ways to engage the new administration on the benefits, the jobs and the tax revenues this project brings to the table.”

What Donald Trump’s Victory Means for the Mainstream Media By Tiberiu Dianu

After a long night that ended up with a clear Trump victory, I think it’s safe enough to say that, from now on, there are going to be some radical changes in the relationship between the American people and Mainstream Media (MSM).

Here there are the following 15 talking points that should be considered (in a random order):

(1) The MSM has always presented itself as the holder of Truth. Reality has shown that MSM has been engaged for way too long in a war with Truth, and MSM has lost this war.

(2) The MSM has portrayed Hillary Clinton as a person exonerated from criminal responsibility for her numerous acts of corruption and illegal activities over time. Reality has indicated that she has jeopardized national security, and has threatened certain individuals, perceived as dangerous or compromising for her own political convenience.

(3) The MSM has presented Donald Trump as an isolated, exotic character, unrelated to the world’s current major concerns (particularly in Europe, but also in Asia and Africa), such as: Islamic terrorism, massive immigration (particularly from Muslim countries), and the assault against Christianity. Reality has shown that Trump is, indeed, a true American Mr. Brexit.

(4) The MSM has presented populism as a marginal trend in the American society. Reality has proven that the majorities of the electorates of both parties, Republican and Democratic, consist in populist voters, who support anti-Establishment candidates (Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders).

(5) The MSM has followed Hillary Clinton and portrayed – narratively and statistically – more than half of the country’s population as a “basket of deplorables,” in sharp contrast with “the majority of the American people.” Reality has shown that the so-called majority – ideologically and racially – consists in an accumulation of several minority groups.

(6) The MSM has threatened the “deplorables” with many Hollywood darlings moving out the country if the candidate of the “deplorables” were to win. Post-election reality will force those darlings of the Dream Factory City to fulfill their vocal promises (otherwise, they should shut the hell up and just sing or act!).

(7) The MSM has presented as a fait accompli the idea that winning televised presidential debates organized by MSM is a solid predictor of winning the presidency. Reality has illustrated that this has become a myth (especially after episodes of Donna Brazile-type, where party operatives, in cahoots with the same MSM, leak information about people’s debate questions to certain preferred candidate).

(8) The MSM has instilled the idea that political household names – like Kennedy, Clinton or Bush – are invincible per se. Reality has shown that non-politicians, like Trump, can take down in just one electoral race two powerful political-dynastic names (Bush and Clinton), which had ruled the country for 16 years in a row.

Green Elites Face Trump Threat A chance to clean up rampant cronyism in the energy sector won’t soon return. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, his candidacy represents an important opportunity. It’s a chance to dismiss a very particular elite about whom it could be said, borrowing from Cromwell, “For any good you have been doing . . . in the name of God, go!”

We are referring, of course, to America’s green-energy elite.

With a Hillary Clinton victory on Tuesday, America’s ludicrous Tesla subsidies would be certain to continue—because so many Democratic politicians aligned with the company, especially in California, are themselves too big to fail.

Washington’s Kafkaesque fuel mileage rules would only become more Kafkaesque. By forcing car makers and their customers to invest in economically unjustified fuel-saving technology, they’ve already perversely contributed to last summer’s breaking of a decade-old record for miles traveled and fuel burned.

Ethanol’s alleged greenhouse benefits have long since been scientifically debunked. Its putative contribution to America’s “energy security” has been rendered a joke by the fracking revolution. Never mind. Corn farmers like a handout, and corn-state senators like being re-elected. The cost to American motorists: $10 billion a year.

And making sure it remains so—we hardly needed the latest WikiLeaks dump to tell us—have been a handful of activist hedge-fund billionaires like Tom Steyer and Nat Simons. In the recent dump of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, we see these men, in return for being willing to write four-figure checks to Democratic candidates, fishing for reassurance that policies that cost the American people billions, with no benefits, will be embraced by the next Democratic administration.

We see climate saints like Bill McKibben and Joe Romm conspiring at their behest to silence a scientist for saying perfectly accurate things about the lack of evidence for a worsening of extreme weather events. We see Mr. Podesta himself trying to orchestrate a media mugging of liberal Harvard Law Prof. Larry Tribe for representing the coal industry.

And to what end, exactly?

Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, is hardly a green-energy naysayer. Yet last week he estimated that even if electric vehicles accounted for half of global auto sales (currently EVs account for less than 1%), oil consumption would nevertheless continue to rise because the “demand growth is not coming from cars, it’s from trucks, aviation and the petrochemical industry and we don’t have major alternatives to oil products there.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The Hamas Supporters Who Brought Out The Muslim Vote The radical US Council of Muslim Organizations doubles registered Muslim voters to one million. Daniel Greenfield

The US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) is boasting that its voter registration campaign “One Million Voters” across mosques and schools has doubled the number of registered Muslim voters to over a million.

The media is cheering this development even though USCMO has a history that makes the KKK look downright sunny. USCMO was in the news last year for its statement denying the Muslim genocide of Armenians and arguing that any recognition of the massacre must also recognize “Muslim suffering.”

USCMO’s Secretary General Oussama Jammal had engaged in 9/11 Trutherism at a rally backing a Hamas supporter. He was president of the Bridgeview Mosque which raised money for the head of Islamic Jihad. The Chicago Tribune described this as the result of a “hard line” takeover of the mosque.

The Bridgeview mosque had been interlinked with the Islamic Association for Palestine which had been set up by the Muslim Brotherhood and featured Hamas operatives such as Mousa Abu Marzook. Jammal had received a “Mosque of the Year” award from KindHearts, a terror charity that was shut down for its ties to Hamas.

Jammal had blamed the Jews for the government’s actions, claiming that there was a “Zionist agenda” at work.

The US Council of Muslim Organizations includes American Muslims for Palestine; an anti-Israel hate group headed by the notorious campus bigot Hatem Bazian. AMP is openly supportive of Hamas terror. Its national campus coordinator has said that, “Hamas’ rockets are an oppressed people’s audible cry for help.” At one of its conferences, there was a lecture on how to “navigate the fine line between legal activism and material support for terrorism.” Its Vice President defended Islamic terrorism.

Along with AMP, USCMO’s founding members include CAIR, an unindicted terror co-conspirator in terror finance. It also includes ICNA, whose former secretary general was convicted of Islamic war crimes by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal. Some of the victims of Islamic terror had their eyes gouged out, hearts removed and their breasts cut off by of the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami.

Michelle Obama and Political Correctness By Herbert London

For those who follow popular culture, the slide into debasement is palpable. From the f-bomb to pornographic exposure, America has become the land of anything goes. The once provincial, laced up nation, challenged by the liberal view of expression, has lost. Victorian notions of modesty are as outmoded as horse-drawn plows.

A couple of months ago an eleven-year-old tape of Donald Trump was aired in which he employed vulgar and uncouth language about women. It was inexcusable, notwithstanding the debasement in the culture. As one might guess, this matter became the focus of the Clinton campaign for president. First lady Michelle Obama said she was “shaken…to my core” by Trump’s comments and, alas she has a point.

However, if Trump’s lewd remarks are so meaningful, it is worth asking why she and the president have openly promoted rap “artists” who glorify misogyny, sexual objectification of women, date rape and cop killing. Kendrick Lamar was invited to the White House for President Obama’s 55th birthday party, the same Lamar who wrote “Bitch, Don’t Kill Me” and even raps about killing police officers. Another invitee, Rick Ross, glorifies date rape with lyrics, “Put molly all in her champagne | She ain’t even know it | I took her home and I enjoyed that | She ain’t even know it.” Molly, by the way, is slang for the date rape drug, Ecstasy.

Nicki Minaj, who often outdoes even the most vulgar of the rappers, has been invited to the White House with her husband despite lyrics such as “Make sure mama crawls on her knees keep him pleased rub him down be a lady and a freak.” This is the respectable side of Ms. Minaj.

Then there is the King and Queen of Rap, Jay Z and Beyoncé, who have been guests of the Obamas dozens of times. Jay Z in “Drunk in Love” wrote, “Slid the panties right to the side | Ain’t got time to take drawers off” and “We sex again in the morning, your breasteses is my breakfast.” This, by the way is the least profane of the lyrics.

Opinion Commentary Conservatism’s Last Line of Defense Dozens of Republican attorneys general may prove a powerful check on the next president. By Kimberley A. Strassel see note please

Presidents can fire attorney general. Such was the case of the late Attorney General Gerald Walpin who was fired without time or reason when his investigations showed chicanery by one of Michelle Obama’s friends…..rsk

Most Americans won’t have heard of Luther Strange, though that might be about to change. Next week the Alabaman ascends to the top of what by that point could be one of the most consequential GOP organizations in the country.

That would be the Republican Attorneys General Association, the umbrella group for the states’ conservative prosecutors—and a new force to reckon with in American politics. Attorney general races don’t get much national attention, but these days they should. Under a Hillary Clinton presidency in particular, Republican AGs may prove the most effective check on both an overweening federal government and growing abuses by liberal prosecutors.

“Health care, immigration, climate regulations—the AGs are acting as a last line of defense, but also in an agenda-setting capacity,” Mr. Strange told me at a recent meeting in Washington, D.C. “And we’ll be in an even stronger position to do this after Election Day.”

His words are a nod to the extraordinary transformation Republican AGs have undergone in the era of Barack Obama. Not many years ago, those AGs had little to do with each other and were focused on policing occasional state crime. But the combination of the president’s growing federal overreach, and a new generation of activist, conservative law dogs, has inspired a powerful and cohesive new AG movement.

Members include the likes of Florida AG Pam Bondi, who helped oversee a coalition of states that sued the federal government over the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Or Oklahoma’s Scott Pruitt, who has plowed the way in lawsuits against federal overreach in health care, water regulations and endangered species listings. Or Michigan’s Bill Schuette, whose state successfully challenged the feds on its costly rules on power-plant emissions. Or Texas AG Ken Paxton, whose legal efforts put a hold on President Obama’s immigration plan.

Republicans currently hold 27 AG seats, and they are likely to emerge from Tuesday with more. In Missouri, a young dynamo, the 36-year-old Josh Hawley, looks poised to beat Democrat Teresa Hensley. Mr. Hawley, a law professor and Becket Fund for Religious Liberty alumnus, has run on a promise to defend working Missouri families against “Washington bureaucrats.”

In North Carolina, state Sen. Buck Newton is in a tight race against Democrat Josh Stein, in a contest that may hinge on the upticket re-election fortunes of Donald Trump and Gov. Pat McCrory. Republicans are also feeling more confident they’ll hold on to West Virginia, where rebel AG Patrick Morrisey (the first GOP AG in the state since 1933) is defending against liberal activist Doug Reynolds. And in Indiana, Republicans expect to hold a seat with the election of Curtis Hill, who’d become the Hoosier state’s first African-American AG. If it’s a good night, RAGA could end up 29-strong, a record.

They’ll need that strength, particularly under a Clinton presidency. With Republicans near certain to hold the House, and potentially the Senate, Mrs. Clinton will undoubtedly build on Mr. Obama’s extralegal habit of ruling via executive order or regulation. The GOP AGs will be the primary way for conservatives to challenge those edicts, in court. Under a Trump presidency, they will be an invaluable tool in dismantling some of the Obama federal behemoth. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump, Clinton and the Culture of Deference Political correctness functions like a despotic regime. We resent it but we tolerate it. By Shelby Steele

The current election—regardless of its outcome—reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism sits in American life. As an ideology—and certainly as a political identity—conservatism is less popular than the very principles and values it stands for. There is a presumption in the culture that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality—this despite the fact that so many liberal policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome.

In the broader American culture—the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment, the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education—conservatism suffers a decided ill repute. Why?

The answer begins in a certain fact of American life. As the late writer William Styron once put it, slavery was “the great transforming circumstance of American history.” Slavery, and also the diminishment of women and all minorities, was especially tragic because America was otherwise the most enlightened nation in the world. Here, in this instance of profound hypocrisy, began the idea of America as a victimizing nation. And then came the inevitable corollary: the nation’s moral indebtedness to its former victims: blacks especially but all other put-upon peoples as well.

This indebtedness became a cultural imperative, what Styron might call a “transforming circumstance.” Today America must honor this indebtedness or lose much of its moral authority and legitimacy as a democracy. America must show itself redeemed of its oppressive past.

How to do this? In a word: deference. Since the 1960s, when America finally became fully accountable for its past, deference toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization became mandatory. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were some of the first truly deferential policies. Since then deference has become an almost universal marker of simple human decency that asserts one’s innocence of the American past. Deference is, above all else, an apology.

One thing this means is that deference toward victimization has evolved into a means to power. As deference acknowledges America’s indebtedness, it seems to redeem the nation and to validate its exceptional status in the world. This brings real power—the kind of power that puts people into office and that gives a special shine to commercial ventures it attaches to.