Displaying posts categorized under

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION

50 STATES AND DC, CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Sidney Blumenthal, Birtherism, and the Law of Unintended Consequences Sidney Blumenthal’s opposition research in 2008 may have had unintended consequences. By John Fund

Historians will be writing for decades about how Donald Trump improbably became president. Here’s one angle I hope they don’t ignore. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 supporters set in motion Trump’s candidacy when they began spreading rumors that Barack Obama had been born in a foreign country. It wasn’t until 2011 that Donald Trump picked up that bizarre torch and ran with it, only to finally drop it in September when it was clearly a spent flame.

The same mainstream media that slammed Trump for his birther obsession has long failed to properly mention its origins in the “dark ops” wing of the 2008 Hillary campaign. As Britain’s Telegraph reported in 2011: In April 2008, “an anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.” The first lawsuit to make birther claims was filed by Phil Berg, a Democratic attorney and a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Hillary herself has dismissed claims that her campaign had anything to do with spreading the birther rumor. She told CNN that the suggestion was “ludicrous,” saying, “I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me.” But the Clintons rarely leave fingerprints of their own involvement in skullduggery. Last September, former McClatchy Newspapers Washington bureau chief James Asher revealed the role that Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal played in stirring up the birther scandal. “He strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya,” said Asher, who at the time was McClatchy’s investigative editor and in charge of Africa reporting. “We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.”

Denials of the Clintons’ involvement in the original birther controversy come from the same aides who denied that their candidate had personally approved trolling against the Trump campaign even though an undercover video by James O’Keefe confirmed that. Other O’Keefe videos showed that operatives linked to Hillary’s campaign paid people to disrupt Trump rallies and plan voter-fraud schemes.

None of this excuses Trump’s decision in 2011 to stoke the birther controversy and demand a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. (“But I will tell you this. If he wasn’t born in this country, it’s one of the great scams of all time.”)

Trump’s attacks clearly irked Obama, and in April 2011, Obama released a copy of the long-form version of his Hawaii birth certificate. The annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner was three days later, and Obama knew that Trump would be in attendance as a guest of the Washington Post. Obama made a point of strolling onto the stage to the strains of Rick Derringer’s “Real American” and later “revealing” his “long-form birth video,” which ended up being a clip from The Lion King. Obama then proceeded to fillet Trump like a master sushi chef:

I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is happier — no one is prouder — to put this birth certificate issue to rest, and that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter: Like, Did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?

When the Left-media Becomes a Crying Cult By James Lewis

In July of 2011, when North Korea’s butcher-dictator Dear Leader Kim Jung-Il died, all the NK Communist Party members in the land were ordered to cry hysterically, to ululate in grief at the death of Dear Leader, in public, altogether, on command. You can see it in this video, the Party cadres lined up on the hard snow in military platoon formation, men and women, bursting into tears when the command was given.

The BBC wondered at the time whether all that public crying was real or not, since Dear Leader controlled every human being in that country, by sending any wrong ‘uns to his vast concentration camps to be starved and worked to death. Every tear-stained face in those black-clad platoons knew with absolutely certainty that they would be arrested and sent to death if they failed to show enough dramatic grief. Some unconvincing mourners were undoubtedly grabbed and taken away to the camps.

North Korea’s national cry-in for the loss of Dear Leader is an important lesson about human politics: the power of closed cult indoctrination. Turns out you don’t even need death camps. The famous Stanford Prison Experiment showed how it could be done with legally free Stanford students in the prime of life, able to walk away from the experiment any time they liked, without murderous guards armed with guns. All you needed was a Stanford grad student wearing a white lab coat. A whole series of experiments showed the same kind of thing.

The iron key to mind control is having one source of “real” information, and shutting off any competing ones. It’s all Scientology has to deliver for its faithful followers to stay in that imaginary world. Most of the more fanciful religious and non-religious cults on the web have followers who indoctrinate themselves. The Five Star Movement in Italy started as an internet cult in the ‘90s telling teenage kids about airplanes spreading out chemtrails to control the minds of Italians; today the Five Star Cults controls a plurality of votes in the Parliament in Rome. Today “brain hackers” are no doubt using the same dark arts on the more gullible of their webizens. It’s one reason why teenage kids a decade ago started to put metal objects through their ears, lips and noses. To them those were magical symbols as surely as a reversed swastika was an object of power to the Hitlerjugend.

Cults are human universals. A lot of tribal groups are nothing but cults: The key is always restricting information, and crushing dissent. That’s why U.S. cults often block communication between members and their families.

Daryl McCann: Gloriously Unhinged by President Trump *****

When a fabulously wealthy entertainer claims victimhood purely on the strength of her skin’s melanin content and a very shady lady extols XX chromosomes as a prime qualifier for the White House, PC orthodoxy needed a good kicking. The incoming president just administered one.
In the July, 2016, edition of Quadrant I agreed with the notion that for many Americans their country now felt like an express train speeding toward the abyss. Donald J. Trump was the fellow bold enough to propose pushing the Emergency Stop button in a carriage full of frightened and cowed passengers. Trump was the anti-PC candidate in a nation ruled over by a P.C. Establishment.

The concept of Political Correctness is something weightier than mere annoyance or absurdity. It is the ideology of a Left Power Elite (LPE) – to echo sociologist C. Wright Mills’ 1956 critique of the United States – and has long held sway over the American people. The LPE itself is a caste of notable families, CEOs, celebrities, mainstream media operators, state mandarins, “progressive” lobby groups, academics, key members of the federal government and so on. PC ideology reflects the worldview and self-interest of members of the LPE and also serves to obscure or disguise their positions of advantage relative to ordinary people (or “the deplorables” as Hillary Clinton would say).

The 2016 US election cycle exposed the LPE as never before. The case of the pop music celebrity Beyoncé might seem trivial and yet it is far from that. During the 2016 NFL Super Bowl halftime show, for instance, the 36-year-old African-American singer-songwriter celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party. Beyoncé, perhaps the highest profile celebrity – amongst a plethora of high profile celebrities – to lend their glamour to the Clinton campaign, later claimed her halftime show had not been “political” (and against NFL guidelines) but instead “cultural”. In a year that would see the rise and rise of the Malcolm X-inspired Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, not to mention the New Black Panther Party, Beyoncé’s rationalisation should be considered disingenuous at best.

Hillary Clinton and Beyoncé share more than an antipathy to Donald Trump. PC Identarianism allows Beyoncé, one of the more dazzling and venerated celebrities on the planet, to play the victim card. This no-expense-spared woman, who inhabits the rarefied air of global superstardom, might have been listed by Time magazine in 2013 and 2014 as one of the most influential women in the world and by Forbes in 2015 as the most powerful female in entertainment, she might even possess a net wealth of as much as $US450 million, and yet Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter self-identifies as a victim. The melanin in her skin allows this revered idol to pose as a member of the modern-day Left’s rainbow of discontents. It is not so much a matter of “white skin privilege” holding Beyoncé back as “black skin privilege” shielding her from accusations of extreme privilege.

The story of Hillary Clinton is a parallel one. She, too, enjoys a privileged life. Politics and public life have been rewarding – in every sense of that word – for Hillary and Bill Clinton. Public financial disclosure reports put her net worth at $31.3 million and Bill’s at $80 million, not bad for a couple in serious debt at the conclusion of their time in White House. Much of that debt, we should mention, was the cost of the legal team – organised by Hillary – to keep Bill at arm’s length from the law during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the latter stages of his presidency. Hillary Clinton was subsequently rewarded with a seat in the Senate (2001-09) and the role of secretary of state in the Obama administration (2009-03).

Among the Trump Protesters Why hit the streets? To dismantle the Electoral College—but mostly to yell.By Adam O’Neal

Thousands of anti-Trump protesters marched up New York’s Fifth Avenue on Saturday afternoon, completing a two-mile journey from Union Square to Trump Tower. The march followed days of similar rallies in Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and elsewhere. Donald Trump has tweeted that he loves the demonstrators’ passion, while accusing many of being professional protesters.

But why protest at all, given the unambiguous results of Tuesday’s election? The demonstrators’ signs offered a few clues. The “F” word was ever-present: as in “F—”—take your pick—Trump, Giuliani, the police, family values, that guy, the electoral system, Newt, Arpaio, Trump’s Amerikkka, and even “you.” One woman carried a sign pledging that she would pay taxes only when Mr. Trump does. Other placards derided “Adolf Trump” and the new “groper in chief,” warning “tiny hands off.”

Enlightened college students carried apologetic messages: “Sorry for the inconvenience, we’re trying to change the world” or “I’m sorry my country is racist.” And “Not my president,” was a fan favorite, though many went with “Never my president.” Other slogans didn’t really add up, such as “You can’t drink oil” or one calling for Vice President-elect Mike Pence to be thrown over a fence.

It was difficult to find a unifying theme, since there was something for almost everybody: POWs are heroes, Black Lives Matter, Family MDs for ObamaCare, Steve Bannon must go.

The crowd’s chants were equally confused. Many simply expressed strong disagreement with Mr. Trump’s policy pronouncements and personal style. “Say it loud / Say it clear / Refugees are welcome here,” they shouted. Men declared, “Your body, your choice,” and women responded, “My body, my choice.” The policy-oriented crowd wasn’t entirely humorless: “Hands too small. He can’t build a wall.”

Flags—rainbow, Puerto Rican, anarchist, Socialist Alternative, Mexican, U.S. (sometimes desecrated, sometimes not)—were all present. But what unified banner were the protesters marching under?

It wasn’t a rally in support of Mrs. Clinton. Yes, her supporters made their presence known by holding up “#ImStillWithHer” signs. Referencing Mr. Trump’s “nasty woman” insult at the third presidential debate, many women affirmed that “We are nasty, yes we are.” They also chanted “We’re with her,” though that one died down quickly.

Any criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s role in losing to Mr. Trump was absent. The crowd was happy to chant, rather than ponder how Mrs. Clinton cleared the field in her primary or why the Democrats lost to one of the most disliked presidential candidates in U.S. history. CONTINUE AT SITE

Trump and Hillary on climate By Anthony Bright-Paul

On the campaign trail, Trump, a Republican, backed more fossil fuel production in the U.S. and vowed to “cancel” the Paris agreement. He has repeatedly suggested that climate change is a hoax. His Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has called for urgent action on climate change.

There in a nutshell you have the difference between the two challengers for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Some apparently highly intelligent people constantly talk about ‘tackling climate change’. But is this intelligent? This is not a question of science, but a question of definitions and of the correct use of the English language.

Strictly speaking, to talk about tackling climate change is an affront to intelligence and an affront to language. How is climate defined? ‘The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period’. So we see at once that climate is intimately connected to the weather.

Change is defined as ‘make something different’. So, what does all that mean? It means in a nutshell that all those who are fighting climate change want to make the weather static.

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? It is like saying, ‘I am against tomorrow’. Only an imbecile would make such a statement. Yet we have world leaders, Presidents, Popes and Prime Ministers all trying to stop change.

Of course, the unDemocrats are rioting. They are burning effigies of Donald Trump. These unDemocrats are against democracy, even though they call themselves Democrats. We have the same phenomenon in England. A democratic referendum took place, where the majority wanted to leave the EU. So the unDemocrats are peeved. The same thing is happening on a bigger scale in the United States.

The American people should congratulate themselves in having elected indisputably the most intelligent of the contenders.

Post-Trumpmatic Stress Disorder By Doris O’Brien

In the machinery of politics, all cycles are spin cycles. And once the centrifugal force takes hold, the whirlwind will not easily come to an abrupt halt. So it is not surprising that after the most contentious presidential election in recent history, a lot of disgruntled Americans can still be seen spinning out of control.

The protests – some of them morphing into riots – were not unexpected. They have become a popular activity enjoined by mostly younger people who some suspect may not even have voted. Yet the irony of this is as lost on them as is their carrying placards saying “Love Trumps Hate” while they shout obscenities and make mischief.

In the past, protests and marches were staged with the expectation of achieving some kind of tangible result. Workers went on strike and picketed for higher wages and better working conditions. The disenfranchised marched for the freedom to vote. Protests and the like took place in order to right unconstitutional wrongs.

But the 2016 post-election protests haven’t a prayer of changing anything. As one wag put it, you cannot question American democracy. Trump won this election fair and square. Nobody in authority contends otherwise. Yet despite the fact that both Obama and Clinton have urged a peaceful transition, the devastated liberal mob heeds only the call of the wild.

These are the whiners who sorely suffer from what I call “Post-Trumpmatic Stress Disorder,” a self-induced disease that is void of physical manifestations other than those that spring like evil dreams from hyperventilating imaginations: coat hangers becoming the only obstetrical tool available in back-alley abortion abattoirs, same-sex unions dissolved; sick Americans, deprived of health insurance, untreated and dying on our streets; polluted air and water killing off the rest of us; hordes of hardworking immigrants hustled across the border, never to return.

Perhaps the protesters are too young and politically naïve to understand that election outcomes in America are the result of our democratic process. Trump is not a banana republic dictator foisted on the people. He cannot be driven into exile by a chorus of shouted insults. Nevertheless, protests, per se, have become courts of first resort for many young people, even if participation in them leads to nothing more than national press attention and a party atmosphere with the like-minded. Their generation, after all, has been encouraged by role models to protest wherever and whenever possible, in the belief that unified venting, in itself, is a noble end.

Early on in their pampered lives, modern protesters learned the nature of parental indulgence. Their temper tantrums were endured, and even rewarded if thrown in public. Their progressive parents, harboring angst of their own, found it convenient to avoid disciplining their offspring lest it breed resentment. So if Junior felt in any way thwarted, he vigorously protested until some placating action or reward shut him up. Distraught parents learned quickly that the humiliation of a child’s meltdown could be eased by a piece of chocolate melting in his mouth. They wanted their way and made trouble if they didn’t get it!

Twenty or whatever years later, these disgruntled whiners are still up to their old tricks, even if there are no treats. As long as they can have their expensive smartphone on hand when they high-mindedly trot off to a protest, they can brave anything. And since they can expect little to change as a result of their action, they find satisfaction in thinking of themselves as a concerned part of history. Besides, isn’t there safety in numbers? Well, at least until the shouting turns to shooting

Protests Against President-Elect Donald Trump Continue Across the U.S. Police estimate 25,000 people in New York; 8,000 demonstrators swarm downtown Los Angeles By Pervaiz Shallwani, Kate King Trisha Thadani

Tens of thousands of people around the country took to the streets Saturday to protest the election of Donald Trump, the fourth straight day of demonstrations against the Republican president-elect.

In New York, an estimated 25,000 people covered a 20-block stretch of Fifth Avenue outside Trump Tower, the 58-story skyscraper fortified by the New York Police Department and U.S. Secret Service agents.
Two people were arrested, both for trying to hop over a police barricade, a senior police official said. The charges against the two people weren’t immediately clear.

Demonstrators have converged on Trump Tower daily since Mr. Trump was elected Tuesday.

Saturday’s protest was the largest to date but also orderly, compared with earlier protests, the police official said. On Wednesday, police arrested 65 people, almost all for not following orders to stay out of the street.

In Los Angeles, about 8,000 people swarmed into the city’s downtown in one of the largest anti-Trump gatherings on the West Coast.

Throngs of people—including many families and children—filled Wilshire Boulevard, a major city thoroughfare, for a slow planned march downtown. The protesters held signs with slogans that have become familiar in the past few days: “Not My President” and “Reject Hate.”

Some demonstrators wore safety pins—a gesture that has become a global symbol to the marginalized that they are “safe” with the person wearing the pin.

Unlike past nights in L.A. when protesters blocked freeways and dozens were arrested, the afternoon protest was peaceful. Los Angeles Police said they made no arrests as of early evening, and most protesters had gone home, though some said they planned to continue the march.

America’s Kristallnacht : Edward Cline See note please

I admire Ed Cline and agree with everything he writes, but the word “Kristallnacht” evokes Nazis and genocide…the ultimate expression of racism. The idiots of the post election rioters -and I saw them very close up on Friday night- are disappointed pseudo rebels without real cause. They are thugs but they are not like the Nazis……rsk
Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would the anti-Trump rioters have behaved any differently?No.

Instead of protesting Trump’s election, they’d be celebrating Hillary’s victory with the same appetite for destruction and brutality and carnage. They would be celebrating it in the best Nazi tradition, such as the Night of the Broken Glass., or Kristallnacht in the character of Novemberpogrome. Businesses would be targeted for destruction and looting (see the glass being broken by hooded thugs) and physical attacks on Trump supporters would be common, and ignored by a compliant news media. The Nazis were celebrating the ascendency of the Nazis in German political life. The “Social Justice Warriors” could just as well be celebrating Clinton’s ascendancy to the White House.

“What difference would it make?”

The pretext for the attacks in 1938 was the assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan in Paris. The attacks were planned and carried out by the Nazi Party to target Jews, the whipping boy blamed for Germany’s economic and other problems. They were targeted, Saul Alinsky style – long before he wrote Rules for Radicals – and isolated and persecuted.

The pretext – and the etymological root of the term pretext, means that the demonstrators then and now were and are acting out a prepared script – is pretending to be “outraged” and “disgruntled” and in violent opposition to Donald Trump’s winning the 2016 presidential election. When multiple mass rallies abruptly occur in multiple cities across the country, from coast to coast, and even in Britain (as Kristallnacht occurred in Germany in 1938) it means that these are no more “spontaneous,” for example, than the Muslim riots and demonstrations against the Mohammad image cartoons. These are all pre-arranged and planned for maximum effect and shock value, to scare the powers that be into concessions.

Some of the rioters are now claiming they are practicing their First Amendment rights. But freedom of speech does not include rioting and terrorizing individua

The first major defeat of political correctness : Fiamma Nirenstein

The chronically guilty mind (it is believed) becomes attached to guilt as a badge of inherent superiority,” writes the psychoanalyst Deborah Tyler in The American Thinkerwhere she examines the psychodynamics of Obama and Hillary Clinton’s politics.

It was fatal for them. In general, recognizing one’s own faults and therefore one’s limits is a springboard for overcoming problems caused not only by ourselves, but also by others.

Trump, a man quite devoted to self-admiration and to the glorification of his actions, make us feel a little worried when he points his finger at Hispanics, immigrants, Islamic terrorists… And yet this was one of the basic tenets of his presidential campaign to move away from the guilt propagated by the Obama administration as the basis of American policy, which imbued its internal and external ethics.

Guilty, responsible, sons and fathers who all share the blame: Americans couldn’t stomach feeling this any longer, geez, given the multitude of troubles they already have.

We are all accustomed to fustigating ourselves: the war? We cynically chose it. Drone strikes? We don’t know if they kill innocent civilians. Immigrants? They’re the result of our imperialist policy. Islamic terrorism? A result of the ideological and social discrimination called Islamophobia that we’ve directed at Muslims; Racial and ethnic inequality, especially between whites and diverse groups? The effect of our racism that always in turn leads to discrimination, violence, and police brutality; sexism and homophobia? These are all vices of capitalist society vis-à-vis a peaceful and innocent world, a left wing world that doesn’t harbor prejudices (and the reverse is true); pollution, climate change, and adulterated foods? The upshot of fierce exploitative policies, including refrigerators, heating, longer life expectancy and a general improvement with regard to living conditions.

Whatever kind of president Donald Trump will be, there are many social and cultural reasons that have decreed an end to the control of the democratic elite associated with Obama’s Chicago-style politics. That said, we must consider the explosion of anger that people wanted to express while sweating, working, fuming and hearing over and over that they are guilty, plus all the dogmas of a political correctness that crucifies them to historical slavery, which forces them to consider themselves responsible for all the troubles of the world, a public danger, a colonial invader instead of that great American friend who runs to the rescue back when it defeated Nazism and many other evils at the cost of so many lives.

And what the heck! Can the leading thinker be Oliver Stone, who has rewritten America’s history by claiming that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed for futile reasons, that Truman was insane because of his unresolved “gender issues,” that Kennedy was killed by the Republicans because he wouldn’t go to war with the USSR… Gradually, we arrive up to the 9/11 attacks as self-inflicted by America upon itself.

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.