Displaying posts published in

November 2016

French Voters Dump Sarkozy, Clear Decks for Marine le Pen? By Michael Walsh

It’s offical — Nicholas Sarkozy is out of the running to regain the office he once held:

Fance’s former president Nicolas Sarkozy conceded defeat Sunday in the race to choose the conservative nominee for next year’s presidential election. With more than 3.2 million votes counted from about 80 percent of polling stations, former prime minister Francois Fillon had 44 percent, former prime minister Alain Juppe had 28.1 and Sarkozy had 21.1 percent.

The two candidates confirmed as winning the most votes advance to the Nov. 27 runoff.

In a speech from his campaign headquarters in Paris on Sunday, Sarkozy called on his supporters to vote for Fillon in the second round. “I did not succeed in convincing a majority of voters. I do respect and understand the will of those (voters) who have chosen for the future other political leaders than me,” Sarkozy said.

Fillon may win the nomination of Les Républicains, but his path to the Palais de l’Élysée is likely to be blocked by “far-right” candidate Marine le Pen, who seeks to ride the same anti-establishment wave that saw Britain ankle the EU and Trump put paid to Hillary Clinton’s girlish presidential fantasy.

The conservative nominee is expected to have strong chances of winning the April-May presidential election, because traditional rivals on the left have been weakened by Socialist Francois Hollande’s troubled presidency.

The conservative candidate’s main challenger may turn out to be far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who is hoping anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-establishment sentiment can propel her to the presidency. Le Pen, official candidate of her once-pariah National Front party, did not take part in the conservative primary.

The conservatives’ campaign has focused on immigration and security concerns following recent attacks by Islamic extremists.

Islam is, of course, le Pen’s strong suit — meaning she’s against its encroachment into Christian Europe, as is every patriotic Frenchmen and responsible European. Polls had already shown le Pen clobbering Sarkozy and she’s like to be able to defeat Fillon as well. Juppe had been tipped as le Pen’s strongest rival, but his second-place finish (which ensures him a runoff against Fillon) doesn’t bode well.

Front National leader Marine Le Pen has taken a sizeable lead over Nicolas Sarkozy in a new French presidential election poll. The far-right leader had 29 per cent of the vote when pitted against Les Républicains’ former president, who was eight points behind, and held a 15-point lead over the Parti de Gauche’s Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the poll released by Ipsos.

Now that Sarkozy is out of the race, French intellectuals are waking up to the real possibility that le Pen will defeat the “conservative” candidate, whether Fillon or Juppe, and trounce incumbent socialist Francois Hollande, should he choose to run again. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Decline and Fall of the Anti-Defamation League By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

The Alt-Left is at it again. This time they are using their internet and media echo chamber to malign Steve Bannon, concocting a narrative that is false but endlessly repeated by their soldiers in the never ending campaign to malign conservatives and members of the Trump campaign. Playing the race card has become the modus operandi of the liberal/left political world.

Mr. Bannon, who has been appointed Chief White House Advisor and political strategist for Mr. Trump, has been a staunch and reliable friend of Israel and has hired a host of Jewish journalists during his leadership at the conservative Breitbart news magazine. He has been an ardent supporter of the Jewish state at the very moment many liberal Jewish organizations were condemning Israel and spouting fashionable anti-Israel criticisms emanating from the Left.

Like Mr. Trump before him, who for four decades was known as a champion of Israel, generous in charitable contributions to her, and someone who routinely hired Jews and accommodated their religious Sabbath needs, Mr. Bannon is likewise being accused of being anti-Jewish ever since he came on board the Trump Express to install a nationalistic and politically conservative legislative approach at odds with the liberal agenda.

The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) last week accused Mr. Bannon of anti-Semitism because, in their words, he is associated with nationalistic movements and anti-Semitic white supremacist groups. He is not associated with any anti-Semitic groups, though he is, like me, an American nationalist. After being forced to supply concrete evidence of anti-Semitism, the ADL backtracked slightly and only accused him of countenancing anti-Semitism.

In its founding years the ADL’s task was to fight anti-Semitism, but in the last few decades it has, like other establishment Jewish organizations, become an ideological arm of the Democratic Party, carrying its water for them, and viewing all of American life through the prism of a neo-leftist agenda no longer rooted in classical liberalism.

Two-State Nightmare Is Dead By Rabbi Fishel Jacobs

It was shocking when it first appeared. It had fatal consequences when it remained. It had calamitous potential on a national level.

The so-called Two State proposal was the most racist, venomous idea of the last generation.

For years it was kept alive by artificial respiration, in the minds of its proponents. Now, with President-elect Trump’s victory, it’s finally dead. No one will be saying kaddish.

In the annals of the history of nations, there has never been a more insulting, degrading nor arrogant suggestion than the Two State solution. Imagine it anywhere else in the world. At one time it could have been Britain, Italy, the US. Let’s let our imagination flow, briefly. Let’s call it OurLand.

OurLand is inhabited and governed by People. A minority, OtherPeople, live in a couple of peripheral areas.

People have always tried to help OtherPeople. They help them financially, supporting their villages and towns. People freely allow OtherPeople to give birth and afford medical assistance in their hospitals. For decades, the elected representatives of People extend hands of peace and brotherhood to OtherPeople.

OtherPeople hate People. OtherPeople seem to hate themselves, as well. For generations, OtherPeople have invested all the unprecedentedly large amounts of money they received from nations outside OurLand to attack and kill tens of thousands of People’s civilians.

OtherPeople have charters. These do not recognize the People’s right to live or breathe in OurLand. Their charters call for the murder of all People. They are proud of these charters and post them online, preach them in their houses of worship, and act on them pursuing attacks on People.

The more that People call for harmony and co-existence, the more OtherPeople hate them. OtherPeople raise their children to be martyrs to murder People.

It’s a hatred no one can explain. But, it’s fact.

Trump Snubs D.C. as Millions Cheer Downgrading Washington’s importance is one of the few good ideas Trump has had. By Kevin D. Williamson

I do not agree with Donald Trump about much of anything. Early in the primary season, I wrote a little book titled “The Case against Trump.” I believe him to be morally unfit and intellectually unprepared for the office to which he has been elected. Which is why one of the most annoying of my tasks for the next four (one assumes!) years is going to be pointing out that while Trump may not be right about very much, his critics often are wrong.

Example A: Trump apparently does not want to live in Washington, and this has inspired a chorus of discord and dissonance to rival the oeuvre of Yoko Ono.

There is no particular reason for Trump to live full-time in Washington. Washington is a dump, one of the least attractive and least inspiring American cities. Trump Tower is a dump, too, a big vertical void in the middle of one of the least interesting parts of Manhattan, but Trump apparently likes it, and he has gone to the trouble of gold-plating his toilets, which you do not do unless you are really planning to plant yourself in place.

Trump’s hesitation to set up housekeeping in our nation’s hideous capital is not causing klaxons of alarum because people are concerned about good government. A nation genuinely concerned about good government would not have entrusted its chief administrative post to Donald J. Trump, a frequently bankrupt casino operator and game-show host. Rather, this is about Trump’s implicit declaration — one shared by his enthusiasts — that Washington is not the most important American city, much less the center of the world, which is where Washingtonians often mistakenly believe themselves to be.

About that much we can agree. National Review has kept its headquarters in New York for much the same reason: Politics should not be the central activity in our lives, or even in our shared public life, and consequently the political capital should be subordinate to the financial and cultural capitals. (Also, I suspect that while William F. Buckley Jr. was one of the most persuasive men of his generation, he’d have had an impossible time convincing his wife to live in Washington, even if he had thought it necessary.) Washington may desire to dominate our lives, but that desire can and should be resisted.

Merkel to Stand for Fourth Term as German Chancellor German Chancellor Angela Merkel has decided to run for a fourth term next year, launching her re-election campaign at one of the most challenging times the chancellor has seen in her 11 years in office. By Ruth Bender

BERLIN—German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Sunday she will run for a fourth term next year, launching her re-election campaign at one of the most challenging times the chancellor has seen in her 11 years in office.

Ms. Merkel seeks to lead the conservative ticket at the next general election in the fall of 2017, she told reporters after announcing her decision to leaders of her Christian Democratic Union in Berlin.

“I have thought about it endlessly,” Ms. Merkel said. “After 11 years, the decision about a fourth candidacy is anything but trivial for the country, the party and for me personally.”

The chancellor will also run for a new term as CDU chairman next month. Her nomination as candidate for chancellor still needs to be approved at a joint meeting of the CDU and its sister party, the Christian Social Union.

Ms. Merkel’s candidacy ends months of speculation within her own party, which widely expected her to run again as there is no clear alternative candidate who could fill her shoes.

“She has no choice now,” said Frank Decker, political scientist at the University of Bonn. “Changing horses so close to the election simply would have left her party in great distress.”
Germany in the Age of Populism

German approval for Chancellor Angela Merkel has eroded amid concern about her handling of the refugee crisis and general anxiety about the future, fueling support for an anti-immigrant political party.

The chancellor acknowledged that she would enter an election campaign that will be tougher than any of the three previous contests.

“We will face opposition from all sides,“ Ms. Merkel said, citing both populist and left-wing opponents at home and abroad who “threaten our values and way of life in Germany.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Nicolas Sarkozy, in Upset, Is Knocked Out of Race for French Presidency The former president’s elimination and François Fillon’s surprise surge upends a conservative primary race that is set to have big consequences in next year’s election By By William Horobin

PARIS—Former President Nicolas Sarkozy was knocked out of the first round of the French conservatives’ primary, marking a significant upset in the race to become France’s next president.

Mr. Sarkozy, who centered his campaign on pledges for hard-line security measures and a clampdown on immigration, was hobbled by a late, surprise surge in support for his former prime minister, François Fillon, who ran on a pledge to deliver a shock to the French economy with deep spending cuts and labor overhauls.

Results from 8,890 of the 10,228 polling stations across the country showed Mr. Fillon won 44.1% of the votes, ahead of the 28.3% received by Bordeaux Mayor Alain Juppé, who recent polls showed had been the favorite to win the primary. Mr. Sarkozy, by contrast, won just 20.9% of votes.

The former French leader’s elimination in the first round upends a conservative primary that is set to have sweeping consequences in France. Polls show the winner next Sunday would be best placed to win the presidential election in May against the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen.

Mr. Fillon and Mr. Juppé will now advance to a runoff next Sunday. Mr. Sarkozy, who conceded defeat late Sunday, said he would throw his support behind Mr. Fillon. “It is time for me to attempt a life with more private passion and less public passion,” Mr. Sarkozy said.

Until last week, polls had shown Mr. Sarkozy would easily reach the second round and go head-to-head with Mr. Juppé in a second-round race centered on questions of French identity and security in the aftermath of a string of terror attacks in France.

Mr. Sarkozy shifted to the right in his campaign in a bid to reach out to Ms. Le Pen’s supporters. He advocated suspending the right of immigrants to bring their families to France and locking up people of watch lists deemed dangerous by intelligence services. Mr. Juppé, meanwhile, tacked in the other direction, centering his campaign on a pledge to reforge a “happy identity” that respects differences and overcomes tensions in French society.

Mr. Fillon’s progression to the second round significantly changes the dynamic of the campaign. CONTINUE AT SITE

The EU’s New Bomb Is Ticking in the Netherlands A referendum law has given Dutch euroskeptics a powerful tool to block deeper European integration, and then some Simon Nixon

THE HAGUE—If the European dream is to die, it may be the Netherlands that delivers the fatal blow. The Dutch general election in March is shaping up to be a defining moment for the European project.

The risk to the European Union doesn’t come from Geert Wilders, the leader of anti-EU, anti-immigration Party for Freedom. He is well ahead in the polls and looks destined to benefit from many of the social and economic factors that paved the way for the Brexit and Trump revolts.

But the vagaries of the Dutch political system make it highly unlikely that Mr. Wilders will find his way into government. As things stand, he is predicted to win just 29 out of the 150 seats in the new parliament, and mainstream parties seem certain to shun him as a coalition partner. In an increasingly fragmented Dutch political landscape, most observers agree that the likely outcome of the election is a coalition of four or five center-right and center-left parties.

Instead, the risk to the EU comes instead from a new generation of Dutch euroskeptics who are less divisive and concerned about immigration but more focused on questions of sovereignty—and utterly committed to the destruction of the EU. Its leading figures are Thierry Baudet and Jan Roos, who have close links to British euroskeptics. They have already scored one significant success: In 2015, they persuaded the Dutch parliament to adopt a law that requires the government to hold a referendum on any law if 300,000 citizens request it. They then took advantage of this law at the first opportunity to secure a vote that rejected the EU’s proposed trade and economic pact with Ukraine, which Brussels saw as a vital step in supporting a strategically important neighbor.

This referendum law is a potential bomb under the EU, as both Dutch politicians and Brussels officials are well aware. Mr. Baudet believes he now has the means to block any steps the EU might seek to take to deepen European integration or stabilize the eurozone if they require Dutch legislation. This could potentially include aid to troubled Southern European countries such as Greece and Italy, rendering the eurozone unworkable. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump Can Ax the Clean Power Plan by Executive Order The aggressive legal positions in Obama’s most controversial rules makes them easier to rescind. By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman

President Obama pledged to wield a pen and phone during his second term rather than engage with Congress. The slew of executive orders, enforcement memorandums, regulations and “Dear Colleague” letters comprised an unprecedented assertion of executive authority. Equally unparalleled is the ease with which the Obama agenda can be dismantled. Among the first actions on President Trump’s chopping block should be the Clean Power Plan.

In 2009 Congress rejected a cap-and-trade scheme to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency then devised a nearly identical scheme to mandate shifting electricity generation from disfavored facilities, like those powered by coal, to those the EPA prefers, like natural gas and renewables. No statute authorized the EPA to seize regulatory control of the nation’s energy sector. The agency instead discovered, in an all-but-forgotten 1970s-era provision of the Clean Air Act, that it had that power all along.

To support its preferred policy, the agency was compelled to “interpret” the statute in a way that contradicts what it acknowledges is the “literal” reading of the text and clashes with decades of its own regulations. It also nullifies language blocking regulation for power plants because they are already regulated under an alternative program. By mangling the Clean Air Act to intrude on areas it was never meant to, the regulation violates the constitutional bar on commandeering the states to carry out federal policy.

These defects are why the Supreme Court put the EPA’s plan on hold while an appeals court in Washington, D.C., considers challenges brought by the energy industry and 27 states. These legal challenges now appear to have been overtaken by events. President Trump can immediately issue an executive order to adopt a new energy policy that respects the states’ role in regulating energy markets and that prioritizes making electricity affordable and reliable. Such an order should direct the EPA to cease all efforts to enforce and implement the Clean Power Plan. The agency would then extend all of the regulation’s deadlines, enter an administrative stay and commence regulatory proceedings to rescind the previous order. CONTINUE AT SITE

Steve Bannon on Politics as War The Trump adviser talks about the winning campaign and says the political attacks against him and Breitbart News are ‘just nonsense.’ By Kimberley A. Strassel

It’s hard to think of Steve Bannon as a low-profile guy. He has garnered about as many headlines over the past week as Donald Trump—no small feat. He is the executive chairman of the hard-right Breitbart News, among the most aggressive voices online, its website an attack machine against Democrats and “establishment” conservatives. President-elect Trump chose Mr. Bannon this week as his chief strategist and senior counselor, a slot usually filed by someone eager to play a presidential surrogate on TV.

Yet Mr. Bannon—who joined the Trump campaign in mid-August to propel its thunderbolt victory—professes no interest in being the story. “It’s not important to be known,” he says in a telephone interview Thursday night, among his first public comments since the election. “It was Lao Tzu who said that with the best leaders, when the work is accomplished, the people will say ‘We have done this ourselves.’ That’s how I’ve led.”

Nor does he profess to care that Democrats and the media are portraying him as a “cloven-hoofed devil,” as he puts it. “I pride myself in doing things that matter. What mattered in the campaign was winning. We did. What matters now is pulling together the single best team we can to implement President-elect Trump’s vision.

He continues: “How can you take anything seriously from a media apparatus—paid the amount of money you people are paid—that systematically missed something that was so obvious, that missed Brexit, that missed the Trump revolution? You’d have thought they’d have learned their lesson on November 8.”

Slight pause. “They clearly haven’t.”

Here are a few things you’ve likely read about Steve Bannon this week: He’s a white supremacist, a bigot and anti-Semite. He’s a self-described Leninist who wants to “destroy the state.” He’s associated with the “alt-right,” a movement that, according to the New York Times, delights in “harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media.”

You’ll have seen some of Breitbart’s more offensive headlines, which refer to “renegade” Jews and the “dangerous faggot tour.” You maybe heard that Breitbart is gearing up to be a Pravda-like state organ for the Trump administration.

Mr. Bannon is an aggressive political scrapper, unabashed in his views, but he says those views bear no relation to the media’s description. Over 70 minutes, he describes himself as a “conservative,” a “populist” and an “economic nationalist.” He’s a talker, but unexcitable, speaking in measured tones. A former naval officer, he thinks in military terms and likes to quote philosophers and generals. He’s contemptuous of the media, proud of Breitbart, protective of the “deplorables,” and—at least at the moment—eager to work with everyone from soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

At first Mr. Bannon insists that he has no interest in “wasting time” addressing the accusations against him. Yet he’s soon ticking off the reasons they are “just nonsense.”

Anti-Semitic? “Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America. I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS movement”—meaning boycott, divestment and sanctions—“in the United States; we’re a leader in the reporting of young Jewish students being harassed on American campuses; we’ve been a leader on reporting on the terrible plight of the Jews in Europe.” He adds that given his many Jewish partners and writers, “guys like Joel Pollak, these claims of anti-Semitism just aren’t serious. It’s a joke.”

He blames the attacks on a lazy media, noting for instance that the “renegade Jew” line wasn’t Breitbart’s. Conservative activist David Horowitz (also Jewish) has taken responsibility for writing the headline himself, in a piece about Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

The Lenin anecdote came from an article in the Daily Beast by a writer who claimed to have spoken with Mr. Bannon in 2013: “So a guy I’ve never heard of in my life claims he met me at a party, and then claims I said something about Lenin, and this is taken as gospel truth, with nobody checking it.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump’s Nuclear Deterrence Challenge America’s nuclear triad is sorely out of date, left to age by a president who saw it as a relic of the Cold War. By Franklin Miller and Keith B. Payne

President-elect Donald Trump will soon be working with his national security team to establish priorities on security and defense policy. Two challenges will demand immediate and unrelenting attention.

Throughout the campaign Mr. Trump emphasized the need to destroy Islamic State, also known as ISIS, as a functioning terrorist organization. Since there is no way to negotiate with or reliably deter medieval zealots willing to murder and die for their misbegotten cause, military force is the only answer at this point. The next president also must keep the defense and intelligence communities focused on preventing the remnants of ISIS from obtaining weapons of mass destruction—particularly nuclear weapons.

But Mr. Trump has inherited the even greater threat of an increasingly precarious nuclear balance. All three elements of America’s nuclear triad—land-based and sea-based missiles, and bombers—are now approaching obsolescence. A hostile Russia that miscalculates U.S. will and deterrence capabilities poses a mortal nuclear threat to our existence.
President Vladimir Putin has set out to re-establish Russia’s domination of the lands previously under the Soviet Union, changing European borders by force and occupying neighboring territories militarily. Russia has also made explicit threats to initiate nuclear war against the U.S., our allies and even neutral European states.

Nuclear first-use—a policy that includes the threat of initiating a nuclear war and the option of doing so—is a key part of Mr. Putin’s expansionist political and military strategy. First-use is emphasized in open Russian military statements, at least as far back as the official 2003 Russian military doctrine. Backing up this doctrine, Russia is deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ballistic-missile submarines and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles launched from the ground, sea and air.

Russia also is developing a new ICBM that will carry “no fewer than fifteen” nuclear warheads each, according to Russian descriptions. Its size and payload suggest the missile is specifically designed for nuclear first strikes. Mr. Putin has overseen “snap,” i.e., sudden, nuclear exercises to demonstrate the ability of his nuclear forces to strike instantly. Moscow has even begun to practice Cold War-style nuclear-survival drills on a massive scale.

Mr. Putin also has allowed his most-senior officials to issue threats of nuclear attack not heard since the days of Nikita Khrushchev. A chilling example came on March 16, 2014, two days before Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Dmitry Kiselyov, the Putin-appointed head of the government’s international news agency, boasted on his TV show that “Russia is the only country in the world capable of turning the U.S. into radioactive ash.” Subtle.

Early this month, in response to the planned deployment in 2017 of 330 U.S. marines to Norway, Frants Klintsevitsj, a deputy chairman of Russia’s defense and security committee, said, “This is very dangerous for Norway and Norwegians. . . . We have never before had Norway on the list of targets for our strategic weapons. But if this develops, Norway’s population will suffer.”CONTINUE AT SITE