Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Stephen K. Bannon: Friend of the Jewish People, Defender of Israel:Joel B.Pollak

I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.

A word or two about my credentials: I am an Orthodox Jew, and I hold a Master of Arts degree in Jewish Studies. My thesis at the Isaac and Jesse Kaplan Centre at the University of Cape Town dealt with the troubled status of Jews in an increasingly anti-Israel, and antisemitic, post-apartheid South Africa. I believe myself to be a qualified judge of what is, and is not, antisemitic.

It defies logic that a man who was a close friend, confidant, and adviser to the late Andrew Breitbart — a proud Jew — could have any negative feelings towards Jews. As I can testify from years of work together with Steve in close quarters, the opposite is the case: Steve is outraged by antisemitism. If anything, he is overly sensitive about it, and often takes offense on Jews’ behalf.

Steve cares deeply about the fate of Jewish communities in America and throughout the world, a fact that is reflected in Breitbart News’ daily coverage. It was in that spirit that Steve joined Breitbart News CEO Larry Solov (also Jewish) in launching Breitbart Jerusalem last year, fulfilling Andrew’s dream of opening a bureau in Israel specifically to cover the region from an unabashedly Zionist perspective.

Trump’s Dueling White House Heads Priebus and Bannon will be ‘equal partners.’ This will be interesting.

Donald Trump’s success as President will depend on whether he can merge his populist instincts with the reform agenda of Republicans in Congress to form a united and effective government. His choices for his most senior White House aides suggest those two tendencies will compete in his Administration the way they did during the campaign.

Mr. Trump offered something for both camps Sunday with his announcement that Reince Priebus will be his chief of staff while Stephen Bannon will be chief strategist and senior counselor. Mr. Priebus is the head of the Republican National Committee who stuck with Mr. Trump despite the many valleys of the campaign and provided the get-out-the-vote operation that Mr. Trump lacked. Mr. Bannon is a former Goldman Sachs banker, Naval officer and Breitbart News executive who joined the campaign with Kellyanne Conway in August amid one of those valleys.
It’s hard to know whether this is will be a sublime union of yin and yang or “Survivor: Trump White House.” Typically the chief of staff runs the White House and is the President’s most trusted adviser. But it’s notable that the announcement from the Trump transition established no clear hierarchy between the two men. The transition statement said that “Bannon and Priebus will continue the effective leadership team they formed during the campaign, working as equal partners to transform the federal government, making it much more efficient, effective and productive.”

Equal partners? Rarely does any organization run well if there are dueling heads, and one reason the Obama Presidency suffered is that his early chiefs of staff were undermined by the competing influence of White House aide and Obama family friend Valerie Jarrett.

Mr. Trump has sometimes set up competing forces within the Trump Organization, as he did with his Atlantic City casinos. This arrangement can succeed if Messrs. Priebus and Bannon divide responsibilities cooperatively, but it will lead to a mess of leaking dysfunction if they divide into competing factions. Someone will have to be the final word on who gets to see the President and which issues require a presidential decision.

The two men certainly come with different instincts and constituencies. Mr. Priebus is an establishment operative who built the Wisconsin GOP into one of the country’s most effective state parties. He has close ties to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Republicans across the country. He brings knowledge about how Washington works that is essential if Mr. Trump is going to move fast to take advantage of whatever honeymoon he will get.

DNC staff: Arrogance cost Hillary Clinton the election vs. Donald Trump US News DavidCatanese

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, held a conference call with devastated staffers that put the rosiest possible frame on a calamitous picture.

The message to the dozens of mostly young, sleep-deprived and shell-shocked aides: We did everything we could have. We wouldn’t have changed a thing. You should still be proud.

Inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters, which sits half a mile south of the U.S. Capitol, eyes rolled and heads shook in frustration and disbelief.

Clinton’s loss at the hands of Donald Trump amounted to the most surprising outcome in the history of modern electoral politics. Of course things could’ve been done differently. And ignoring that fact wasn’t going to make the searing defeat any easier.

“We are pissed at them and state parties are pissed at them because they lost due to arrogance,” a top DNC staffer tells U.S. News, sharing the candid sentiment suffusing the high levels of the committee in exchange for anonymity.

It’s no surprise that the hierarchy of the Clinton campaign leadership was insular and self-assured. But DNC staffers say the team’s presumptuous, know-it-all attitude caused it to ignore early warning signs of electoral trouble inside the states, and demoralized DNC staff who felt largely marginalized or altogether neglected for most of the campaign.

There is always some level of tension between the sprawling bureaucracy of the party committee and the nominee’s campaign apparatus. But in the wake of Clinton’s loss, when intraparty finger-pointing is inevitable, some DNC staffers describe the relationship between the two entities as uniquely ineffectual, even after the displacement of unpopular chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And they attribute it to one fundamental reason: Clinton’s campaign leaders always thought they knew best. The DNC was to do what it was told: Essentially, be seen and not heard.

On election night, DNC number crunchers’ first saw signs of trouble when tallies from Virginia began to roll in. Here was a state the Clinton camp expected to carry by nearly 10 points, and the early returns showed that wasn’t going to happen. She won it by 5, but the slimmer-than-expected margin made DNC staffers nervous, especially because they had warned the Clinton camp not to pull staff and resources from there. The campaign did anyway, slashing its advertising investment in August. Sure, they survived inside the commonwealth, but inside the DNC, the late call of Virginia for Clinton was a distressing warning of things to come.

If their projected margin in Virginia was cut in half, where else was their forecast wrong?

Florida was always expected to be a slog. But a shiver went down the DNC’s collective spine when a call came in from Scott Arceneaux, executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, saying, “We’ve got a problem.”

A Trumpocalypse? Oh do grow up It is the anti-Trump set that is trading reason for emotionalism. Brendan O’Neill

There’s a dark irony to the somewhat swirling media response to Trump’s victory. For months now, observers have been telling us that Trump’s army is motored more by feeling than reason. Trumpism is a movement based on ‘untrammelled emotion’ over ‘reason [and] empiricism’, said Andrew Sullivan. Trump makes ‘sly appeals to… human irrationality’, said Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon. Like all of history’s demagogues, Trump conjures ‘vivid images and intense emotions’, said a writer for the Conversation. Especially in relation to security: apparently he plays on people’s feelings of ‘uncertainty or instability’.

Yet now, as Trump’s victory shocks the world, or at least that portion of it that lives in its own echo chamber, who is it that’s exhibiting ‘untrammelled emotion’? Who’s conjuring up ‘vivid images’ and ‘intense emotions’, particularly with regard to security? It isn’t Trump’s supporters, most of whom went from the ballot box back to their everyday lives. It’s the anti-Trump set. It’s those who spent months claiming Trump supporters lack the mental and moral equipment necessary for ‘reasoned deliberation’. Many of these rather elitist politicos and observers are behaving in a way that makes even the most hot-headed Trump cheerer look perfectly rational in comparison.

The emotionalism of their response has been intense. ‘“I feel hated”, I tell my husband, sobbing in front of the TV in my yoga pants and Hillary sweatshirt’, said an American columnist in the Guardian. Former UK foreign secretary Margaret Beckett says Trump’s victory feels like ‘the end of the world’ (bit rich coming from a woman who voted for the Iraq War in 2003). Emotion over reason is widespread: the Washington Post reports that ‘mobs of tearful students’ are protesting against Trump’s win; some American universities are providing counselling for those ‘traumatised’ by Trump; celebs including Miley Cyrus and Perez Hilton have issued videos of themselves weeping over Trump’s victory, which have been shared hundreds of thousands of times by similarly frazzled Hillary backers.

Even worse than the emotionalism is the apocalypticism. Trump conjures up ‘vivid images’ to exploit people’s feelings of ‘uncertainty’? Yes, he does, but not as intensively as anti-Trump observers have been doing. British historian Simon Schama said Trump’s victory will ‘hearten fascists all over the world’ and is reminiscent of Hitler’s rise. Trump’s victory is the ‘greatest calamity to befall the West since World War II’, says Guardian columnist Owen Jones, clearly having never experienced the deprivations of 1970s recession or 1980s class conflict. Cheap, history-exploiting Hitler comparisons are rife: protesters hold up pictures of Trump with a Hitler moustache while celebs cry over America becoming like ‘Germany in the 1930s’.

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.

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.

When the Trump Team Comes Looking for the Secrets of Obama’s Iran File By Claudia Rosett

Thursday’s cordial meeting between President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama was a reassuring ritual of democracy. But Obama was far from convincing when he told Trump “we are now going to do everything we can to help you succeed.” There are some highly disparate ideas here about what constitutes success, both foreign and domestic. There are also big areas in which one might reasonably wonder if Obama and his team are in a quandary over the prospect of a Trump administration inheriting the internal records of the most transparent administration ever.

Take, for instance, the Iran nuclear deal, Obama’s signature foreign policy legacy, the chief accomplishment of his second term. The Obama administration’s Iran file has been a realm of murk, crammed with dangerous concessions and secret side deals for terror-sponsoring Tehran — to a degree that has left some critics wondering if Obama’s real aim was to empower Iran as the hegemon of the Middle East (equipped with ballistic missiles to complement its “exclusively peaceful” nuclear program).

The cherry on top — officially separate from the nuclear deal, but highly coincident — was the Obama administration’s secret conveyance to Iran early this year of cash totaling $1.7 billion for the settlement of an old claim against the United States.

Like Obama’s other legacy achievement, the unaffordable Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, these Iran dealings were so intricate, extensive and opaque that we are still discovering just how duplicitous the official narratives were. Obama never submitted the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty for ratification by the Senate. Instead, he rushed the deal to the United Nations Security Council for approval less than a week after the final text was announced, and left Congress wrestling through the ensuing weeks, during the summer of 2015, to try to extract vital details from the elusive Obama and his team, subject to a legislative bargain so convoluted that the process, and the deal, never came to a vote.

Effective Immigration Law Enforcement Under Trump Leaders must follow Trump’s lead or risk alienating their constituents. Michael Cutler

Now that the 2016 Presidential election is literally and figuratively in the history books, candidate Trump must begin the process of transforming into President Trump so that he can implement his goals to “Make America great again.”

Donald Trump has also promised to “Make America safe again” and “Make America wealthy again.”

Trump’s historic rise to power was, in no small measure, the direct result of those promises in addition to the promise to construct a wall along the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico to keep out rapists, murderers and narcotics.

From the beginning of his effort to become America’s 45th President, Donald Trump, the highly successful billionaire, quickly realized that the key to resolving most of the threats and challenges we face was effective immigration law enforcement.

Trump was highly critical of the H-1b Visa Program that enables tens of thousands of foreign high-tech workers to displace American workers and also promised to use “Extreme vetting” to make certain that no aliens, especially those who are citizens of countries that sponsor terrorism would not be admitted into the United States unless our government could be certain as to their identities and the fact that they did not pose a threat to our safety.

Trump Blows Up Received Political Wisdom But political roadblocks may be ahead. November 11, 2016 Bruce Thornton

Donald Trump’s improbable victory on June 8 exploded much of the received political wisdom, especially political correctness, that many Republicans had considered an immutable inhibitor of policy reform. Now we will see if the deeper structural changes of the past decades created by political correctness can be corrected.

As the rhetoric of the NeverTrumpers revealed, identity politics ideology about various subgroups in America had been accepted as truth. Many so-called conservatives endorsed dubious victim-narratives and group identities as realities that Republicans had to accept and adapt to. “Hispanics,” we were told, are the fastest growing minority, a demographic time-bomb that will shatter the Republican party unless it acknowledged their grievances and proposed remedies. Rhetoric criticizing illegal aliens was counterproductive and “insensitive,” if not racist. Hence in 2013 the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” put forth a “comprehensive” immigration bill that set a low bar for illegal aliens to become citizens, without first ensuring that the border be controlled or putting in place stringent mechanism for vetting applicants. Yet despite those drawbacks, many Republicans, believed that such legislation would create good will and future votes among “Hispanics.”

For obvious reasons, these efforts did nothing to increase the Republican share of these voters in 2014 and help Mitt Romney. The first problem is that “Hispanics” don’t exist. In reality there is a complex diversity of peoples from various ethnicities and national cultures. A recent Mexican-Indian immigrant from Oaxaca who picks grapes has little in common with a third-generation Mexican-American who speaks little if any Spanish and works for the DMV. A Honduran Indian dishwasher has no solidarity with a Caucasian Cuban lawyer.

Like everybody else, these groups have diverse interests that may overlap, such as wanting government to provide more social welfare transfers, and give them a similar interest in voting for Democrats. But, as the cliché goes, thinking that bringing illegal aliens “out of the shadows” was the prime concern of these diverse millions was dubious at best, and contrary to most polling data that put this issue low on the list of concern for Hispanics. That may be why for all Trump’s allegedly “racist” and “xenophobic” rhetoric about illegal aliens, he did slightly better among Hispanic voters than did Mitt Romney.

ELIZABETH WARREN EMERGES FROM HER TEEPEE TO WARN AMERICA

Warren welcomes us to the Republic of Fear By James G. Wiles

As the dark night of Fascism descends across America, Fauxahontas yesterday addressed the barons of the AFL-CIO. She said:

“This wasn’t a pretty election. In fact, it was ugly, and we should not sugarcoat the reason why. Donald Trump ran a campaign that started with racial attacks and then rode the escalator down. He encouraged a toxic stew of hatred and fear. He attacked millions of Americans. And he regularly made statements that undermined core values of our democracy.

“And he won. He won — and now Latino and Muslim-American children are worried about what will happen to their families. LGBT couples are worried that their marriages could be dissolved by a Trump-Pence Supreme Court. Women are worried that their access to desperately needed health services will disappear. Millions of people in this country are worried, deeply worried. And they are right to be worried.”…

“We will stand up to bigotry. There is no compromise here,” she said. “In all its forms, we will fight back against attacks on Latinos, African Americans, women, Muslims, immigrants, disabled Americans-on anyone. Whether Donald Trump sits in a glass tower or sits in the White House, we will not give an inch on this, not now, not ever.”

The message is clear.

The Borking of Donald J. Trump has begun.