Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Hillary’s Disastrous Economic Plan She is a master when it comes to wishful thinking By The Editors

Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a speech on economic policy in Michigan, just after Donald Trump had laid out his own economic agenda. Mrs. Clinton’s presentation was an exercise not in economics, but in mythology.

A seemingly trivial but nonetheless illuminating example of her fundamental intellectual unseriousness on economic questions was her repetition of the ancient, repeatedly discredited myth that Henry Ford raised his workers’ wages on the theory that doing so would enable them to buy Ford cars, thus increasing his company’s profit. Nothing of the sort ever happened, in reality, and the economic assumptions behind this myth — that one can spend one’s way to prosperity — is preposterous. Economically speaking, this is flat-Earth stuff, pure hokum from a woman who likes to smugly proclaim: “I believe in science!”

It is economically illiterate, but Mrs. Clinton sincerely believes it, arguing that, in the same vein, raising the federal minimum wage would actually help U.S. employers by giving consumers more money to spend at their businesses. That money of course must come from somewhere, and where it comes from is businesses (who, of course, pass on some of those costs in a variety of ways). Some consumers would have more to spend, and businesses would have less to spend. Mrs. Clinton, who does not know very much about any business other than charging $10,000 a minute for speeches (which is, to be sure, an excellent business model) perhaps has never been informed that the biggest customer of the typical small American business is — pay attention here — another business, small and family-owned firms making the majority of their sales to commercial operations rather than to individual consumers.

Her policy isn’t bootstrapping — it’s pure magical thinking.

Toomey vs. Sanctuary Cities Is it time to stop allowing illegal aliens to rape and murder? Matthew Vadum

Philadelphia’s egregious sanctuary city policy that has repeatedly allowed illegal aliens to commit rape in that city has to end, says Sen. Pat Toomey.

Philadelphia has one of the most “extreme versions” of the policy, Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican in a tough reelection fight, said on the “O’Reilly Factor” Wednesday.

There are hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. Some left-wingers use the dreadful euphemism “civil liberties safe zones” to describe them. The phrase blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S.

The sanctuary movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans is the product of decades of concerted collusion by radical George Soros-funded groups like the ACLU to get cities to pledge to violate laws that protect U.S. national security. Cheered on by the Left, sanctuary cities frustrate immigration enforcement efforts and shield illegal aliens from federal officials as a matter of policy.

The Obama administration is fine with that. President Obama has made America a sanctuary country, rolling out the red carpet for illegal aliens, especially those from Mexico, to come to the U.S. and depress labor markets while they suck the nation’s welfare state dry.

On Fox News Channel, Toomey slammed the City of Brotherly Love for unleashing a violent illegal alien from Honduras named Ramon Aguirre-Ochoa on Pennsylvanians. Aguirre-Ochoa was previously deported from the U.S. in 2009. He reentered the country illegally and was in the custody of police but was liberated when Philadelphia officials failed to honor a federal request to keep him in custody.

“This monster raped a child and he never should have been here,” he said. “And the folks at ICE didn’t want him here. They had asked the police department of Philadelphia to hold this guy until they could send an agent to pick him up and deport him.”

But “their hands were tied by a very bad policy that forbids them from cooperating with federal immigration officials. It’s terrible, and it’s a security risk for all of us.”

Failing to cooperate with immigration officials who want a prisoner held beyond the expected release date is in theory a violation of federal law, some say, but court rulings have clouded the issue.

National Security Experts for Destroying America How the media lies about its parade of pro-Clinton national security experts. Daniel Greenfield

Once again the media has become the communications arm of a Democratic political campaign.

The media widely covered General Allen’s attack on Trump at the DNC and treated him as an apolitical national security expert. It neglected to mention that he works at Brookings or that the president of the Brookings Institution is Strobe Talbott.

Talbott is an old friend of the Clintons. He got into government through them and worked for them as Deputy Secretary of State. He owes his current prominence largely to his Clinton connections.

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, Talbott was one of the few to have close access to her. He is not only a political ally, but also a personal friend. And Brookings and the Clinton Foundation are entangled in a number of ways. One of those ways was Brookings’ extremely controversial sponsorship by Qatar which included a sizable payment to Bill Clinton to appear at the US Islamic World Forum.

General Allen was also in attendance at the US Islamic World Forum.

The media did not see fit to inform its viewers, listeners and readers that General Allen wasn’t an apolitical national security expert, but was in the vest pocket of the Clintons.

When former CIA boss Mike Morell offered a splashy endorsement of Hillary Clinton combined with an attack on Trump, it made headlines. It made fewer headlines when the New York Times’ Public Editor mentioned several days later that the paper really ought to have noted that Morell was working at Beacon Global Strategies whose co-founders include two key Hillary people, Philippe Reines and Leon Panetta. It inevitably made no mention of Morell’s role in editing the Benghazi talking points.

Instead the media pretended that a story about a Hillary loyalist endorsing her was some sort of major development when it was really as predictable and meaningless as rain in Seattle.

Or lack of rain in Los Angeles.

Despite the finger wagging from its own public editor, the New York Times still refuses to mention that Morell had any economic or political ties to Hillary’s people. The only reason for this obstinacy is that it would expose a lie that the newspaper of false record insists on telling as often as it can.

A MAGNIFICENT CON BY THE MUSLIM KHAN BY FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE ****

At the Democratic National Convention in July, Pakistani immigrant and Muslim Brotherhood member Khizr Muazzam Khan held up a booklet containing our U.S. Constitution in condemnation of Donald J. Trump’s plans to ban Muslim immigrationDid the mainstream media speak up to expose the fact that Khan advocates for Sharia Law to be implemented in the United States? Did “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd expose the fact that Khan’s membership in the Muslim Brotherhood equates to conquering and destroying America’s constitution? Did John Dickerson at “Face the Nation” expose Khan’s legal firm ‘buying’ U.S. citizenships for his Muslim brothers in Saudi Arabia?

Not a word! In fact, the mainstream media jumped all over Trump rather than defend their own country from the Muslim immigration threat. Its consequences play out all over Europe in accelerating lone wolf massacres and subsequent parallel societies.

Journalist Daniel Greenfield wrote, “When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s happening more and more often. The new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims. Lone wolf terrorism operates off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. The FBI or other law enforcement agencies cannot monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow.” (Source: Right Side News, Stop Lone Wolf Terrorism by Ending Muslim Immigration, August 2, 2016)

Notice none of the mainstream outlets expose Hillary Clinton’s top aid Huma Abedin stands first, last and always—a Muslim. The same media that enjoys our 1st Amendment rights never touches the fact that Obama employs 13 Muslims on his staff. One of them named Mr. Magid works on implementing Sharia Law in America. He’s known as the Sharia Law czar in the White House.

BIGOTRY IS BACK: ‘People of Color’ College Students Forbid White Roommates By Tom Knighton

Being from the Deep South, it was hard not to learn about the evil of segregation. Thank goodness those days are over.

Aren’t they?

A group of Claremont Colleges students looking for roommates with which to share off-campus housing posted an ad on Facebook, with one caveat — white folks need not apply:

Student Karé Ureña (PZ ’18) posted on Facebook that non-white students in need of housing arrangements should reach out to either her or two other students with whom she plans to live in an off-campus house. The post states that “POC [people of color] only” will be considered for this living opportunity. “I don’t want to live with any white folks,” Ureña added.

Dalia Zada (PZ ’18) expressed concerns to the anti-white discrimination. “‘POC only?’ Maybe I’m missing something or misunderstanding your post, but how is that not a racist thing to say?”

“This is directed to protect POC, not white people. Don’t see how this is racist at all…” responded AJ León (PZ ’18), a member of the Pitzer Latino Student Union.

“People of color are allowed to create safe POC only spaces. It is not reverse racism or discriminatory, it is self preservation [sic],” Sara Roschdi (PZ ’17), another Pitzer Latino Student Union member, stated. “Reverse racism isn’t a thing.”

“We don’t want to have to tiptoe around fragile white feelings in a space where we just want to relax and be comfortable,” commented Nina Lee, a Women’s Studies major. “I could live with white people, but I would be far more comfortable living with other poc.”

“White people always mad when they don’t feel included but at the end of the day y’all are damaging asf [sic] and if a POC feels they need to protect themselves from that toxic environment THEY CAN! Quick to try to jump on a POC but you won’t call your friends out when they’re being racist asf [sic],” noted Terriyonna Smith (PZ ’18), an Africana Studies major and Resident Assistant (RA) for the 2016-2017 year. “I’m not responding to NO comments and NOPE I don’t wanna have a dialogue.”

Pay close attention to these bigoted students’ coursework: we have an African Studies major, a women’s studies major, and two members of the Latino Student Union. With such coursework, should we be surprised they fail to see they’ve embraced evil as a virtue?

Movement for Black Lives Accuses Israel of Genocide While Palestinians boast of mass-murdering Israelis. By P. David Hornik

The Movement for Black Lives, which encompasses a slew of organizations associated with Black Lives Matter, has issued its platform.

The platform, essentially a Marxist screed, states:

We are a collective that centers and is rooted in Black communities, but we recognize we have a shared struggle with all oppressed people; collective liberation will be a product of all of our work.

A section of the platform called “Invest-divest” deals, among other things, with U.S. foreign policy issues. Not surprisingly, this section features the Palestinians as one of the “oppressed people[s]” with which the Movement for Black Lives claims to have a “shared struggle.”

Calling Israel “a state that practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades,” this part of the platform asserts:

The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people…. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people. Palestinian homes and land are routinely bulldozed to make way for illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli soldiers also regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old without due process. Everyday, Palestinians are forced to walk through military checkpoints along the US-funded apartheid wall.

“Genocide,” “apartheid,” “apartheid wall,” and other allegations of monstrous Israeli behavior are, of course, staples of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) and other movements across the world that seek to delegitimize and ultimately dismantle Israel.

If one looks at the record, Israelis appear to be inept genocidists. In 1967, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza as a result of the Six Day War, there were about half a million Palestinians living in these territories; today there are three to four million. As for “apartheid,” the Arabs of Israel enjoy full democratic rights and say Israel is the only country they want to live in; the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza were offered statehood in 2000, 2001, and 2008 and each time turned the offer down flat.

The demonization of Israel is, however, a shibboleth of worldwide radical-left movements, and the Movement for Black Lives clearly aligns itself with those.

Meanwhile, the Fatah movement—which governs the West Bank and is seen as the “moderate” Palestinian faction compared to Hamas, which governs Gaza—boasts of having killing 11,000 Israelis.

Fatah made the genocidally tinged boast in an election-propaganda Facebook post that was translated by Palestinian Media Watch. With municipal elections in the West Bank and Gaza slated for October 8, and Fatah and Hamas as the main contestants, Fatah—notorious for corruption and headed by the weak, aging Mahmoud Abbas—is worried about Hamas winning. CONTINUE AT SITE

Shocking data revision by feds: Americans’ wages dropped 4.2% instead of rising in the first quarter By Thomas Lifson

Wages for Americans are dropping at a rapid rate, instead of rising as the feds had claimed. This shocking news – making President Obama’s claim that the economy has recovered from the great recession laughable – was buried in a report on second-quarter earnings and has barely registered in the nation’s media, which are anxious to elect Hillary Clinton.

Neil Munro of Breitbart summarizes the changes:

“Real hourly compensation decreased 0.4 percent after revision, rather than the previously-published increase of 4.2 percent,” the BLS admitted. Compensation also fell another 1.4 percent in the second quarter, from April to June, the BLS admitted in the same report. That’s 2 percent drop in wages since December.

Pay shrank 0.3 percent in 2013, rose a mere 1.1 percent in 2014, but rose a promising 2.7 percent in 2015, according to the BLS.

Based on the erroneous data, President Obama has been taking victory laps on the economy.

In June, Obama cited the mistaken 2016 wage-growth claim while arguing the economy was finally helping ordinary Americans. “Let’s get wages rising faster,” Obama declared in a speech at Concord Community High School, Elkhart, Indiana.

I also know that I’ve spent every single day of my presidency focused on what I can do to grow the middle class and increase jobs, and boost wages … Here’s the good news: Wages are actually growing at a rate of about 3 percent so far this year. That’s the good news. Working Americans are finally getting a little bigger piece of the pie. But we’ve got to accelerate that.

That speech was advertised as his first speech of the 2016 campaign, and he continued his wage-boosting theme during his July 27 speech at the Democratic Convention;

Email Questions Haunt Hillary Clinton The controversy that Clinton hoped had died out when prosecutors closed their investigation looks likely to shadow her through Election Day By Peter Nicholas and Byron Tau

The email controversy that Hillary Clinton hoped had died out when federal prosecutors closed their investigation last month now looks likely to shadow her campaign all the way through Election Day.

Rolling releases of emails from Mrs. Clinton’s time as secretary of state, combined with her own failure to provide succinct, consistent answers on her email practices, have kept the issue simmering.

“Any time she talks about it or engages someone on the issue, it just keeps the story alive rather than letting it go away,” said Andrew Ricci, a former aide to two Democratic congressmen who is a vice president at the public relations and crisis communications firm Levick.

The drumbeat is undercutting Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy and hindering her efforts to seize fuller control of the presidential race by painting Republican rival Donald Trump as an unacceptable alternative.

Last October, 42% of people polled said her use of a private email system while secretary of state was an “important factor” in whether to vote for her, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed. A survey last month found that figure had jumped to 55%.

What’s more, half of voters surveyed said she lacked the right judgment to be president based on a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe that showed she was careless in handling sensitive government information, compared with one-third who said she does have the right judgment.

John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman, said: “She’s said probably about a hundred times now, it [the private email server] was a mistake, wouldn’t do it again. She’s learned from it.”

However, Mr. Podesta conceded the issue has lingered. “It’s a problem that we’ve had to cope with, but I think it’s one we’ve tried to put behind us and people are going to have to weigh that against an opponent on the other side who remains kind of outrageous every day,” he said.
The campaign’s decision to eschew news conferences also limits Mrs. Clinton’s ability to put the issue to rest. The Democrat hasn’t held a full news conference since Dec. 4, 2015, although aides said she has taken more than 2,600 questions from reporters this year on a variety of subjects, many in one-on-one interviews with television anchors.

Mrs. Clinton did take questions from reporters after an appearance last week, and offered a new, and muddled, response to the email flap that stirred fresh headlines. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Fox and the Hens By Marilyn Penn

True to its brand name, Fox News styles its women as vixens with furry false lashes, short pencil skirts and stratospheric shoes that might be dangerous if anyone had to actually walk in them. But seated so that their long legs show more thigh than one-time bathing suits, the women cross their legs and let the camera help their heels to send a loud, clear message of sexual availability. With the exception of Greta von Susteren, whose name alone sounds like an admonition to step back, the Foxy ladies exude sex appeal – Kimberly Guillfoyle, Megyn Kelly, the erstwhile Gretchen Carlson even had glamorous names to go with their form-fitting latex dresses, their sleeveless arms even in winter, their long wavy hair, their perfectly made-up faces no matter the time of day. Since all the Fox women are super-bright and ambitious, one can only question how they failed to get the message of the part they were designed to play. Were they so naive that they didn’t think their attractiveness was essential to their being hired? When they looked at their boss and heard his instructions as to their Stepford-similar make-up and get-ups, did it never cross their minds that this gig might come with the expectations of extra-curricular activity?

These are obvious rhetorical questions since I’ve already stated that the women are smart and ambitious. It doesn’t actually matter whether some of them participated willingly in office interludes or just titilating flirtations – the point is that they were working in a hot-house atmosphere whose message leaches off-screen into people’s bedroom fantasies. So where’s the big scandale? Aren’t these ladies all big girls who know how to deal? Did Roger Ailes really get canned because Gretchen Carlson accused him of having made some suggestive remarks to her – all of which were in the past tense? Doubtful. Was it Megyn Kelly’s supportive complaint that did him in?

Hillary’s Neoliberals Some Republicans have cultural and political affinities that are pulling them away from Trump and toward Clinton. By Victor Davis Hanson

Many elections redefine political parties.

The rise of George McGovern’s hard-left agenda in 1972, followed later in the decade by Jimmy Carter’s evangelical liberalism, drove centrist Democrats into the arms of Richard Nixon and later Ronald Reagan.

These so-called neoconservatives (“new conservatives”) grew tired of liberals’ perceived laxity about fighting the Cold War. In foreign policy, the neoconservatives were best known for supporting idealistic nation-building abroad. They distrusted the rise of what would become political correctness and ever more government. They worried about violent crime and higher taxes. So decades ago, these Democrats joined the Republican party.

Since the 1980s, the neoconservatives have made up the elite of their newly adopted party — despite their unease with the conservative orthodoxy of border enforcement, fierce resistance to gun control, and opposition to abortion.

Now, a few neoconservatives are reinventing themselves again and returning to the Democrats to support Hillary Clinton. We could call them “neoliberals.”

They believe that socialist Bernie Sanders made the hard-Left Clinton seem like an acceptable centrist. As neoliberals, they hope that beneath her opportunistic embrace of Obamism, Clinton still could recalibrate herself as more of a Democrat of the 1990s, a period when her husband, President Bill Clinton, championed balancing the budget while intervening abroad.

Neoliberals — along with some members of the conservative establishment — consider Republican party nominee Donald Trump to be toxic. Many of them are supporting Clinton because they do not like Trump’s idea of building a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration. Nor do they appreciate Trump’s slogans about “putting America first” when negotiating trade deals, conducting alliances, and avoiding optional foreign interventions. They hate Trump’s crude, take-no-prisoners invective more than Hillary’s polished and refined lying.

The 2016 neoliberals were never very culturally conservative. So they are certainly not bothered by Clinton’s pro-choice advocacy. They do not mind her promotion of gun control, and they are open to global warming agendas and soft multiculturalism. They see Clinton as preferable to Trump and his unapologetic nationalism. Many of the neoliberal converts supported the Obama–Clinton intervention in Libya and oppose Trump’s get-tough trade stance on China.

Neoliberals also find themselves more in the same class — defined by income, education, and cultural tastes — with Clinton’s elite Democrats than with Trump’s new army of lower-middle-class cultural and economic populists.

Neoliberals get along well with the small elite class that fuels the Clinton machine — similarly wealthy, well-educated grandees on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, along with those in big media, academia, the arts, and the top echelons of state and federal bureaucracies.

Democrats no longer win over the middle classes, who lack the culture of the elite and the romance of the distant and subsidized poor. NASCAR and the NRA are anathemas to Democrats and were never popular with neoconservatives either.

Will the old neoconservatives/new neoliberals who support Clinton instead of Trump ever come back to the Republican party after the election?

It depends on three unknowns.