NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

EDWARD CLINE: THE UBIQUITY OF LIES

Posted By on November 10th, 2016

I can’t think of a better way to open a column on the ubiquity of lies in politics today than by quoting Melanie Phillips from her Jerusalem Post article of October 27th “As I See It: Palestinians step up the jihad of the lie” :

Of all the disturbing issues of our time, the most fundamental is the collapse of the distinction between truth and lies.

When post-modern society decided that the notion of objective truth was bunk and so everything was relative, it also destroyed the idea of a lie. If there’s no such thing as truth, there can be no such thing as a lie. Everything becomes merely a matter of opinion.

Melanie Phillips is a prolific British writer, author of many notable and controversial titles such as Londonistan, All Must have Prizes, and The World Turned Upside Down.

So, it wasn’t just the concept of truth that was attacked or suborned, it was also concept of falsehood that was also banished from objectivity. If a statement is a lie, how would one know it if one’s cognitive faculties were sabotaged, if reason and logic were committed to the dustbin? Reason, logic, and objectivity have already been carted away by the Marxist dustmen in academia, leaving hapless students and taxpayers and mortgaged-to-the-hilt parents with the multi-fortune tab. It explains the state of the culture and the pathetic state of students.

A noteworthy example of how to lie is the British government’s decision to conceal the true ages of Calais “Jungle” children from the public by erecting a screen to shield the true ages of the “children.” The Daily Star of October 23rd reported:

But the new arrivals were shielded from view with a 15ft fence around the entrance to Lunar House in Croydon, south London.

EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

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

Posted By on November 10th, 2016

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:

BOOKS, EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

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

Posted By on November 10th, 2016

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.”

POLITICS Comments turned off

Dems’ Plummeting Numbers By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

I have a take slightly different from David’s on the Democrats’ sharp decline in presidential numbers.

Hillary was a terrible candidate, no question. I could never understand why anyone on our side feared her. She’s never been good at this. She won a senate seat in New York, where the GOP barely has a pulse. She would have been nominated (or coronated) in 2008 if she could have gotten to 40 percent with Dem voters; she couldn’t, which is why Obama got consideration that someone of his inexperience and radical background should never have gotten … and he duly zoomed past her. This time around, the party rigged it for her, and she still struggled to beat a batty 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who wasn’t even a Democrat until 2015. As I’ve said a number of times, she was certain to be just as bad a candidate in ’16 as she had been in ’08, except now she had Benghazi and a generally lousy tenure at the State Department hanging around her neck – and that was before we learned about the homebrew email system, destruction of government records, mishandling of classified information, etc.

But all that said, I look at Hillary as Obama’s policies without Obama’s aura. Obama the historical figure has always run ahead Obama’s policies. Because race remains a highly charged issue in American life, the first African-American presidency excited people in a way the prospect of a woman president does not. By that, I mean to imply the opposite of sexism: Geraldine Ferraro appeared on a presidential ticket a generation ago, Sarah Palin eight years ago, and women have been holding high-level cabinet, congressional and judicial posts for decades. The electorate has more women than men, many women are visibly successful in private industry, and our close ally Britain now has its second female prime minister. It’s just not that big a deal to people. The playing field has leveled to the extent that when, sometime in the easily foreseeable future, a woman wins the White House, it will be based on merit, not sex. Hillary’s problem is not that she is a woman; it’s that she is Hillary.

Obama is a very different story: people who are not particularly supportive of his agenda have nevertheless supported his presidency – although the number declined markedly after his policies took hold in 2009. His personal charm has always been lost on me – I find him aloof, thin-skinned, condescending, and dishonest. But even I can see that he is handsome, graceful, impressively confident, has a great voice, is clearly comfortable in his celebrity, and is by all accounts an admirable husband and father. Many people like having him as their president. His presidency’s historic nature makes them feel better about the country (which is why it is so tragic that he further divided the nation racially when he was uniquely positioned to unite us). Even if people are not crazy about the direction in which Obama has taken the country, he often does not get blamed for his policy failures.

But let’s take Obama The Historic President out of the equation. Since he became president and Democrats got onboard his aggressively statist governance, the party has been routed across the country: in both houses of Congress, and in state and local governments. When Obama’s policies are on the ballot without Obama, Democrats tend to get shellacked.

In addition to her lack of political gifts, Clinton was plainly hurt by her scandals, WikiLeaks, and the FBI’s machinations, which publicized many of the sordid details uncovered by the bureau’s investigation and then redirected the public’s attention to the emails after she hoped she had put them behind her. Still, as much as anything else, Clinton was hurt by the implosion of Obamacare in the critical final weeks of the campaign. It is Obama’s signature policy, and she had to run on it.

Obama’s policies do not run well without Obama on the ballot.

POLITICS Comments turned off

President-Elect Trump Did Not Create the Movement, It Created Him Trump succeeded in refashioning himself as a populist champion. By Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

It will take a long time to analyze exactly what happened in the extraordinary election of 2016. It is already clear, though, that what propelled Donald Trump to the presidency was his grasping, before others caught on, that the contest was far less about right versus left, or even Republican versus Democrat, than about the country versus Washington.

He is now President-elect Trump. On Monday, however, he seemed a likely loser. In his pre-mortem, Charles Krauthammer opined that, even in defeat, Trump would remain the de facto leader of the Republican party because he had “created a movement.” I think, though, that the movement actually created the Trump candidacy.

Indeed, the movement was emerging fitfully in the late stages of the Bush 43 administration — a time when most people would have pegged Trump (to the extent he had identifiable politics) as a member of the establishment camp that catalyzed the movement. It is the movement whose outlines were sketched by Angelo Codevilla in 2010, pitting “the ruling class” against the country — the latter consisting of ordinary Americans of all races, ages and creeds, who were outraged when the bipartisan Beltway and its corporate cronies colluded in a massive wealth transfer to bail out insiders in the mortgage meltdown. It is the movement that gave rise to the Tea Party and other grassroots revolts against Washington’s monstrous growth and intrusiveness, the rigged system that prospered as everyone else’s economy flat-lined.

In the Obama years, as the divide widened, the political establishment took on a post-American cast. But the American people, it turns out, still like being the American people. The electoral blowback, beginning in 2010, has been intense, notwithstanding Obama’s 2012 reelection (in which he lost nearly 4 million voters from his 2008 victory). Equally intense has been the opposition to Washington’s way of doing business. While the media have been unable to hide their disdain for what the narrative holds to be the divisive forces that prevent Washington from “getting things done,” increasing numbers of Americans, across ideological lines, objected to the things Washington was doing.

Donald Trump saw an opening to become their champion, and that is what he made — or remade — himself into. For a very long time he was not taken seriously, just like the alienated forces he represented were not taken seriously. I certainly did not believe he was for real until very late in the game — and I say that as someone who has been aligned with the anti-ruling-class temper from the outset; I simply never thought Trump was the right vehicle for the movement.

But that was not for me to say, and now I get to hope and pray that he proves me wrong.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

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

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

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.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

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

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

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.”

POLITICS Comments turned off

Hillary Clinton Concedes: ‘This Is Painful, And It Will Be For a Long Time’ Democratic nominee says ‘we must accept this result,’ look to the future By Colleen McCain Nelson

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

Democrat Hillary Clinton publicly conceded her loss to Republican Donald Trump Wednesday, calling on the nation to give the president-elect a chance to lead while acknowledging that her defeat was deeply painful.

In a speech before supporters in New York, the former secretary of state said this election had revealed that the U.S. is “more deeply divided than we thought,” but she urged her allies to have an open mind about the man who will be the 45th president.

“We must accept this result,” she said. “Donald Trump is going to be our president.”
Mrs. Clinton said she congratulated her Republican rival and offered to work with him for the good of the country. She asked her backers to “never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it.”

After suffering a shocking defeat at the hands of an opponent with no political experience, Mrs. Clinton’s decades-long career in public service came to a likely conclusion in the brief but somber speech. Fighting back emotion, she offered encouragement to the young leaders who would follow in her footsteps and revealed her own sadness about an abrupt ending that she didn’t appear to anticipate.

“This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I know how disappointed you feel because I feel it, too…This is painful, and it will be for a long time.”

Mr. Trump pulled off one of the biggest upsets in political history on Tuesday, rolling up victories in key battlegrounds and notching unexpected wins in a few Democratic-leaning states. Mrs. Clinton had the edge in most polls leading into Election Day, but Mr. Trump rode a populist wave fueled by frustrated voters to win the presidency.

In her first public remarks since the election, Mrs. Clinton said she was proud to have been the champion for women across the country. CONTINUE AT SITE

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Palestinians Demand The Dead Sea Scrolls From Israel UN’s anti-Israel bias on full display. Joseph Klein

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

The United Nations continues to serve as the Palestinians’ battering ram to try and destroy the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel. Between the Organization of Islamic Cooperation-influenced UN Human Rights Council, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, more UN resources and time are devoted to the advocacy of the Palestinian cause than to virtually any other issue.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has also been used to advance the Islamists’ Palestinian agenda, which went into high gear after the admission of Palestine to UNESCO with full membership privileges in 2011. Not satisfied with UNESCO’s recent outrageous resolution using only Arabic names for the Temple Mount and Western Wall, and condemning Israel for conducting archeological excavations in and around Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority now wants UNESCO to demand that Israel “surrender” the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is yet another example of the Palestinians’ strategy to use UN bodies to help them rob the Jewish people of their historic association with the land of Israel.

As Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama-Hacohen was quoted in Israel Hayom as saying in criticizing the Palestinians’ latest gambit, “This is another provocative and audacious, attempt by the Palestinians to rewrite history. The Dead Sea Scrolls are factual and weighty archeological evidence of the presence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.”

Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee conducted the annual ritual of adopting a series of anti-Israel resolutions. The ten resolutions – more than three times the number of resolutions condemning the other 192 member states of the UN combined – are virtually certain to be formally adopted by the General Assembly in plenary session next month.

The hypocrisy of the UN in action is staggering. Israel is repeatedly condemned in resolutions spearheaded by Islamic countries with atrocious human rights records. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for a massive number of civilian deaths in Yemen as a result of the Saudi-led coalition’s indiscriminate aerial bombing, is rewarded with a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Double standards may not be enough to describe what has become of the United Nations. In some ways it has no standards at all.

“The U.N.’s assault on Israel today with a torrent of one-sided resolutions is surreal,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, on November 8th. “Even as Syrian president Bashar Assad is preparing for the final massacre of his own people in Aleppo, the U.N. is about to adopt a resolution — drafted and co-sponsored by Syria — which falsely condemns Israel for ‘repressive measures’ against Syrian citizens on the Golan Heights. It’s obscene,” added Neuer.

The Assad regime’s brutal repression has led to the deaths of more than 3000 Palestinian refugees, including at least 200 children, in Syria since 2011. A thousand or so Palestinians are languishing in Syrian prisons. Yet the Palestinians lock arms with their Syrian regime oppressors to join in supporting resolutions condemning “Israel, the occupying Power.”

A number of the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee appear to endorse the Palestinians’ demand for the right-of-return – or, as one such resolution puts it, the “protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel.”

Beginning in 1977, the United Nations has sponsored the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29th, the date in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved its partition resolution, which the Jewish residents had accepted but was rejected by many Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries. The event takes place every year at UN Headquarters in New York and at the UN Offices at Geneva and Vienna and elsewhere.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called November 29th a “day of mourning and a day of grief.” In other words, every November 29th, the United Nations publicly mourns the passage of its own peaceful solution to the Arab-Jewish dispute. The UN is effectively repudiating its own original two-state solution, spurned by all of the Arab countries back in 1947, which still lies at the heart of the solution that the UN claims to support as the basis for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict today.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Geert Wilders, Or, A Daniel Come to Judgment ‘More In Sorrow’ The witch hunt against a freedom fighter continues. Hugh Fitzgerald

Posted By on November 9th, 2016

In March 2014, during a political rally at The Hague, Geert Wilders asked his audience whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans” in The Netherlands. “Fewer, fewer,” his supporters chanted. And then he promised them that “then, we will arrange that.” He meant, of course, that if his party were to do well in the next election, he would limit the number of “Moroccans” entering the country. He did not denounce all “Moroccans.” He did not say he would be forcibly removing “Moroccans” from the country. All he did was utter less than a dozen words, lasting less than 30 seconds. There was no ranting, no mocking of Moroccans. But out of that briefest of exchanges with his supporters a hysterical case has been concocted by the Dutch state against Wilders, who is now on trial, put there by those who think that his question-and-answer constituted “racism” and “discrimination” and “hate speech.”

Where should we begin with this? Wilders has never made a comment on a race, though he is forever being accused of “racism.” “Moroccans” are not a “race,” and it is not “racist” for a Dutch citizen to worry aloud about the observable effect of their increasing presence in the Netherlands. Nor do Moroccans constitute an ethnicity; there are both ethnic Arabs and ethnic Berbers who are “Moroccans.” “Moroccan” signifies a national identity, albeit one that is inextricably linked to Islam. Wilders said nothing to whip up “hate” against “Moroccans.” He merely asked his audience whether, given their own experience with Moroccan immigrants, they wanted more or fewer such migrants in the Netherlands. For experience had shown that those “Moroccans” continue to make heavy demands on the generous Dutch welfare state, soaking up funds (for housing, medical care, education, unemployment benefits, etc.) that are then no longer available for needy Dutch people, and that the rates of criminality, and expensive incarceration, among “Moroccans,” have been many times larger than the rates among the native Dutch. As of 2011, 65% of all Moroccan males between 12-23 years of age have been detained by the Dutch police at least once. One third of this group has been detained five or more times. Moroccan criminals are convicted at four times the rate of Dutch suspects. These numbers were steadily increasing when reported on in 2011, and it is reasonable to conclude they have continued to rise since then, though no more recent reckoning has been made public. It may be that the Dutch government doesn’t want figures to get out that would alarm the populace still further. And European officials, including the police, often discourage the reporting of crimes by Muslim migrants.