Displaying posts published in

December 2016

Good riddance, John Kerry by Ruthie Blum

Every time a member of the Obama administration makes a statement about domestic or foreign affairs, one is reminded why Donald Trump was elected president last month. Many of those who voted for him despite concerns about his unconventionally brash persona did so in the hope that his picks for top jobs would compensate for his own lack of experience in Beltway politics.

So far, it appears, this was more than a smart gamble. But one of the highest positions, which has yet to be determined, is that of chief diplomat. The list of Trump’s possible candidates now includes former Gov. Mitt Romney, former CIA Director David Petraeus, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin and retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis.

But let’s face it: Even Bozo the Clown would be better than Secretary of State John Kerry.

To be fair to Kerry, he was following the foreign policy spelled out by Obama four years earlier: that America was about to embark on a new path, reaching out to enemies who would suddenly transform into friends when faced with a more gentle and multicultural America — one that “leads from behind.”

Nevertheless, it was Kerry who did most of the shuttling, predominantly to the Middle East, alternating between his many trips to Europe to grovel before his Iranian counterpart, and visits to Israel, where he expressed severe displeasure with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not behaving similarly with the Palestinian Authority.

In what was hopefully one of his last public appearances in his role this week — at the 13th Annual Saban Forum in Washington, D.C., where he delivered the keynote address — Kerry highlighted the disaster that constituted his tenure, without an iota of remorse — other than in his failure to force Israel to create a Palestinian state.

David Petraeus Should Not Make The Cabinet. He’s Just Hillary Clinton In A Better Pantsuit: Christine Brim

His history of lying and coverups does not just disqualify him for Secretary of State—it makes him unfit for any cabinet position in Trump’s administration.

David Petraeus was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos this Sunday, an event promoted as “Petraeus’s Sunday Hail Mary” in his last-minute efforts to become part of the Trump cabinet. Petraeus’s television performance was grim, tense, and hesitant. His demeanor was that of a defendant on the stand, trying to keep his stories straight.

Surprisingly, for someone who has sworn to defend the Constitution in his professional career, Petraeus stated without qualification, “I don’t vote.” He insisted that he did not support or oppose Trump, “nor did I support or oppose any other candidate. I’ve truly tried to be apolitical, non-political.”

But in fact, Petraeus’s positions have been identical to Clinton’s for years, possibly up to the moment last week when he entered Trump Tower for his meeting with the President-Elect. Petraeus as Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton in a better pantsuit.

And that’s why Petraeus is not just a bad choice for Secretary of State—he’s a bad choice for any other cabinet position. He brings too much baggage, a damaged brand, and a long history of lying. He lied to the FBI and CIA about his handling of classified documents; he lied to his wife about his mistress; he lied to Congress about Benghazi. Why should Trump’s transition team assume he’s telling them the truth now?
Petraeus Mishandled Classified Info and Lied about It

Petraeus handed over eight black binders of classified information to his mistress Paula Broadwell, risking charges of violating the Espionage Act. These were real secrets, and it was a more than just a “mistake,” as Petraeus would later allege. “The Justice Department said the information, if disclosed, could have caused ‘exceptionally grave damage,’” wrote the Washington Post. “Officials said the notebooks contained code words for secret intelligence programs, the identities of covert officers, and information about war strategy and deliberative discussions with the National Security Council.”

That was just the start of a series of lies and coverups. Petraeus was caught lying to the FBI in the investigation. He also reportedly lied to the CIA when he resigned, claiming he had no classified materials when, in fact, those eight books of secret information were still at his home. The administration managed to keep the FBI investigation of Petraeus secret until after the 2012 election: the election was held November 6, and Petraeus’s superior James Clapper was—conveniently—informed November 7 of Petraeus’ affair. Obama was then briefed, allegedly for the first time, on November 8—the day Petraeus resigned.

Mishandling classified information and then lying about it, and then being allowed to walk on a misdemeanor charge? It’s as if the Petraeus scandal was the dress rehearsal for the FBI’s handling of Hillary’s private server.
Petraeus Defended Middle East Clients Over the Rights of Fellow Americans

Petraeus’s first impulse is to silence any criticism of Islam that could upset his Middle East clients. When he was commander of CENTCOM, those clients were the Islamic nations in the CENTCOM region. Not much changed when he joined the global financial firm KKR in 2013, as a “door opener” to Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and everyone else he had previously courted in his official government role.

But then in December 2015, Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. Petraeus’s Muslim clients went ballistic. As The Federalist related earlier this year, “In December 2015, influential Dubai billionaire Khalaf Al Habtoor published an op-ed (‘Ignore Trump’s bigotry at your peril’).” On May 4, Habtoor called Trump “very dangerous” and a “loose cannon.” Two days later, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal warned against Trump’s effect on U.S.-Saudi relations.

A week later on May 13, Petraeus made his move against Trump. He wrote a scathing op-ed for the Washington Post, expressing his concern that Muslims would be alienated by “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.”

Petraeus’s op-ed reached CAIR-levels of outrage, scolding “those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims,” “those who demonize and denigrate Islam,” and “demonizing a religious faith and its adherents.” A bravura finger-wagging performance, the op-ed also served as a timely audition for a future Clinton administration, with Petraeus warning “It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric.”

Al Gore Has ‘Extremely Interesting’ Meeting With Donald Trump By Debra Heine

Former Vice President Al Gore, a leading proponent of anti-global warming advocacy, met with President-elect Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka for what he described as “an extremely interesting conversation” at Trump Tower on Monday.

Via NBC News:

Gore, who campaigned for Hillary Clinton, declined to say what exactly he and Trump spoke about during the meeting. But he said he met with both the president-elect and Ivanka Trump, who reportedly wants to make climate change one of her signature issues.

“I had a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect. It was a sincere search for areas of common ground… I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I’m just going to leave it at that,” Gore told reporters after the meeting.

The meeting came just days after a source said Ivanka was interested in making climate change one of her signature issues.
Donald Trump’s Post-Election Climate Stance

Trump, however, has been skeptical of climate change, calling it a “hoax” and tweeting in 2012 that global warming was “created” by the Chinese.

Perfect Irony: Fidel Castro’s Hearse Breaks Down, Mid-Procession By Tyler O’Neil

Twitter screenshot of the hearse bearing Fidel Castro’s remains breaking down mid-procession in Cuba.

The late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s funeral took place this weekend, and the hearse carrying his body broke down mid-procession — and soldiers needed to push it the rest of the way. Twitter users called it “an Econ teacher’s dream-come-true for a metaphor.”

While this seems to confirm conservatives’ criticism of Cuba’s economy, it wasn’t just conservatives reporting on the event. In The Huffington Post’s report, Ed Mazza found a way to blame the United States: “Breakdowns are common in Cuba, where the longtime U.S. trade embargo has limited the number of new cars in the country. Many of the vehicles on the road are decades old.”

But also fittingly, the vehicle was reportedly Russian-built (perhaps even Soviet-built).

Here are a few of the pictures from the scene:

John Bolton: Trump Phone Call With President of Taiwan ‘Exactly the Right Thing to Do’ By Debra Heine

While establishmentarian heads continue to explode over President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial phone call with the president of Taiwan last week, one of his potential candidates for secretary of State says it’s much ado about nothing. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who met with Trump on Friday to discuss the vital cabinet position, said on Fox Business Monday that taking the congratulatory phone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen was “exactly the right thing to do.”

“I think the President of the United States should talk to any foreign leader he thinks its in the interest of the United States to talk to,” Bolton told Fox Business host Lou Dobbs.

“Tsai Ing-wen is a democratically elected president of a representative government in Taiwan — a free government, a free press, a free economy … the whole bit,” he said.

Bolton pointed out that the Taiwanese people have been friends with the United States for decades, even after “we treated them shabbily, time and time again.”

“From what happened with the loss to China in the UN when they were replaced by Beijing, to the derecognition during the Carter administration — over and over again,” he noted. “And they have stood with us — it’s a remarkable record.”

Dobbs said he was “heartened” to see the president step up and talk to whomever he pleases.

Trump’s Taiwan call wasn’t a mistake. It was brilliant. Mark Thiessen

Relax. Breathe.

Donald Trump’s phone call with the president of Taiwan wasn’t a blunder by an inexperienced president-elect unschooled in the niceties of cross-straits diplomacy.

It was a deliberate move — and a brilliant one at that.

The phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen was reportedly carefully planned, and Trump was fully briefed before the call, according to The Washington Post. It’s not that Trump was unfamiliar with the “Three Communiques” or unaware of the fiction that there is “One China.” Trump knew precisely what he was doing in taking the call. He was serving notice on Beijing that it is dealing with a different kind of president — an outsider who will not be encumbered by the same Lilliputian diplomatic threads that tied down previous administrations. The message, as John Bolton correctly put it, was that “the president of the United States [will] talk to whomever he wants if he thinks it’s in the interest of the United States, and nobody in Beijing gets to dictate who we talk to.”

Amen to that.

And if that message was lost on Beijing, Trump underscored it on Sunday, tweeting: “Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don’t think so!” He does not need Beijing’s permission to speak to anyone. No more kowtowing in a Trump administration.

Trump promised during the campaign that he would take a tougher stand with China, and supporting Taiwan has always been part of his get-tough approach to Beijing. As far back as 2011, Trump tweeted: “Why is @BarackObama delaying the sale of F-16 aircraft to Taiwan? Wrong message to send to China. #TimeToGetTough.” Indeed, the very idea that Trump could not speak to Taiwan’s president because it would anger Beijing is precisely the kind of weak-kneed subservience that Trump promised to eliminate as president.

Trump’s call with the Taiwanese president sent a message not only to Beijing, but also to the striped-pants foreign-policy establishment in Washington. It is telling how so many in that establishment immediately assumed Trump had committed an unintended gaffe. “Bottomless pig-ignorance” is how one liberal foreign-policy commentator described Trump’s decision to speak with Tsai.

Trump just shocked the world by winning the presidential election, yet they still underestimate him. The irony is that the hyperventilation in Washington has far outpaced the measured response from Beijing. When American foreign-policy elites are more upset than China, perhaps it’s time for some introspection.

The Twin Pillars of Progressive Prejudice Universities and the media: arrogant, ignorant, and ripe for reform By Victor Davis Hanson

In media land, Donald Trump is a reckless tweeter; Barack Obama’s outreach to GloZell and rapper Kendrick Lamar is just kicking back and having fun (Lamar’s latest album portrayed the corpse of a judge to the toasting merriment of rappers on the White House lawn). In media land, Donald Trump risked world peace by accepting a phone call from the democratically elected president of Taiwan; Barack Obama’s talks with dictators and thugs such as Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Raul Castro were long overdue. In media land, jawboning Carrier not to relocate a plant to Mexico is an existential threat to the free market; not so when Barack Obama tried to coerce Boeing to move to Washington State to produce union-made planes, or bullied a small non-union guitar company, or reordered the bankruptcy payouts of Chrysler and essentially took over the company.

In campus land, the election of 2008 was cause for ebullition; in 2016, elections by nature were traumatic as students were reduced to whining toddlers who needed cookies and milk.

(Note that campus post-election micro-parenting is not extended to departing students when they are hit with huge student-loan totals. Then they suddenly morph from helpless teenagers to full-fledged adults who must pay up what they borrowed to the colleges that did not educate them. Offering cookies and “caring” are a lot cheaper than not collecting overdue loans.) In campus land, federal laws should be rendered null and void — as in 1861 (over slavery) or 1961 (over racial integration of schools) — as colleges see fit; Donald Trump is a near fascist for wanting carry out the oath of his office by enforcing all federal statutes against states’-rights subversion.

The university and the media share two traits: Both industries have become arrogant and ignorant. We have created a climate, ethically and professionally, in which extremism has bred extremism, and bias is seen not as proof of journalistic and academic corruption, but of political purity. The recent election, and especially its aftermath, embarrassed journalists and academics alike — and should not be forgotten.

In the aftermath, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, as they insist that the popular vote alone should have mattered, that the Russians stole the election, that there was voting fraud, but only in the swing states Trump won, or that Democrats did not emphasize identity politics enough — anything other than the truth that a now municipal Democratic party is run by apartheid coastal elites and fueled by identity politics, and that journalists and professors cannot keep society’s trust.

The Brown-Becerra Axis For Illegals Radical new California Attorney General will defy federal law. Lloyd Billingsley

On November 8, Kamala Harris gained election to the U.S. Senate and California Governor Jerry Brown has selected Rep. Xavier Becerra to take her place as state attorney general. “I’m confident he will be a champion for all Californians and help our state aggressively combat climate change,” said Brown in a statement. For his part, Becerra made it clear he had other priorities.

As the Sacramento Bee noted, Becerra “appeared to back California’s efforts to prevent removal of unauthorized immigrants who pose no threat to public safety.” And as Brown’s attorney general pick explained, “If you want to take on a forward-leaning state that is prepared to defend its rights and interests, then come at us.” For the task of defending all “unauthorized immigrants,” Becerra is well qualified.

At Stanford, where he earned his bachelor and law degrees, Becerra was a member of MEChA, the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano De Aztlan. A belch from the sixties’ left, MEChA calls the southwest portion of the United States “Aztlan” and seeks to regain the territory for Mexico. The MEChA slogan is “Entre la raza todo, fuera de la raza, nada,” and the “raza” is not the human race.

“I was a member of MEChA when I was in college,” Becerra told Sean Hannity in 2003.

“It’s an organization that promotes the ability for young people to get to college, the way I got to be the first in my family to go to college.” Becerra said. The eleven-year congressman would not respond to Hannity’s questions about the group’s racist slogans and irredentist campaign.

Becerra was a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton, and in her 2014 Hard Choices Clinton explains: “after all, much of the southwestern part of the United States once belonged to Mexico, and decades of immigration have only strengthened the familial and cultural ties between our nations.” Clinton liked Becerra but apparently had trouble pronouncing his name. The MEChA veteran remained in Congress, where he faithfully supported amnesty for those in the country illegally.

As Daniel Greenfield noted, Becerra also blocked funds for the war on Islamic terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, claiming that he wanted to avoid “another Vietnam.” He also voted against a commendation for US troops’ service in Iraq. His passion, however, remains the defense of illegals and he is a perfect fit for governor Jerry Brown, uncritical of sanctuary cities that shelter violent criminals.

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, also known as José Inez García Zarate, was a felon who had been deported five times. He duly found refuge in San Francisco, Jerry Brown’s home town, where he gunned down Kathryn Steinle, 32, in July of 2015. That killing did not prompt the governor to challenge sanctuary cities, and Becerra told reporters “I don’t believe we should be trying to ascribe blame based on a designation as a sanctuary city.”

Senator Sessions Isn’t a Racist, His Left-Wing Accusers Are. They’re coming for Sessions Daniel Greenfield

They’re coming for Senator Sessions. The Alabama Senator, soon to be Attorney General, has been denounced by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which bills its poison pen letter as coming from “civil and human rights organizations.” Just don’t ask which ones.

The “civil rights” organizations include the AFL-CIO, which had just denounced its own “ugly history of racism” last year, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, whose leaders have at times defended and excused the anti-Semitic and racist Islamic terror of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the National Council of La Raza, whose name means “The Race” and reflects its racialist agenda.

A thuggish union that concedes its own ugliness and two racist groups, one of which defends Islamic terrorists, are the worst possible people to pass any kind of judgment on Senator Sessions.

But it gets worse.

There’s the Center for Responsible Lending, funded by the Sandlers, who helped cause the economic crisis by peddling subprime mortgages. Lending doesn’t get more responsible than that. And there’s also the National Lawyers Guild, which started life as a Communist front group and arguably continues as such, praising North Korea’s “free healthcare and education systems.” Move over Cuba, North Korea has even more shovel-ready free health care for the oppressed comrades of the working class.

I don’t know why the Conference couldn’t manage to get Al Qaeda to sign on to their letter against Sessions. Maybe Osama bin Laden’s iPhone can’t get any bars at the bottom of the Arabian Sea.

But this motley crew of racists, traitors and terrorists has issued its ruling and found that, “Senator Sessions is the wrong person to serve as the U.S. Attorney General.”

The right person is Vladimir Lenin. Unfortunately he’s dead and not qualified to practice law.

You would think that the “144 undersigned organizations” representing billions in wealth and untold amounts of power and influence, could manage a more coherent smear campaign. Instead the letter rehashes the same old discredited smears. Senator Sessions’ joke about the KKK smoking pot is described as “speaking favorably about the Ku Klux Klan” even while admitting that “he was helpful in the Center’s successful effort to sue and bankrupt the Ku Klux.”

Sessions is accused of undermining “voting rights” by prosecuting the “voting rights activists” who were caught mailing hundreds of absentee ballots. These “voter suppression tactics targeting African Americans” came in response to complaints of fraud by African-American officials like Perry County Commissioner Reese Billingslea and John Kennard, Alabama’s first black tax assessor, who said, “The only reason these people are hollering racism now is because they are in trouble for breaking the law.”

The West’s Politically Correct Dictatorship It Has Blinded Us to the Real Danger: Radical Islam by Giulio Meotti

The brave work of the artist Mimsy was removed from London’s Mall Galleries after the British police defined it “inflammatory.”

In France, schools teach children that Westerners are Crusaders, colonizers and “bad.” In their efforts to justify the repudiation of France and its Judeo-Christian culture, schools have fertilized the soil in which Islamic extremism develops and flourishes unimpeded.

No one can deny that France is under Islamist siege. Last week, France’s intelligence service discovered another terror plot. But what is the priority of the Socialist government? Restricting freedom of expression for pro-life “militants.”

Under this politically correct dictatorship, Western culture has established two principles. First, freedom of speech can be restricted any time someone claims that an opinion is an “insult.” Second, there is a vicious double standard: minorities, especially Muslims, can freely say whatever they want against Jews and Christians.

There is no better ally of Islamic extremism than this sanctimony of liberal censorship: both, in fact, want to suppress any criticism of Islam, as well as any proud defense of the Western Enlightenment or Judeo-Christian culture.

Twitter, one of the vehicles of this new intolerance, even formed a “Trust and Safety Council.” It brings to mind Saudi Arabia’s “Council for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”

Under this political correctness, the only “win-win” is for political Islam.