Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Will Mitch McConnell grow a pair?

Canada Free Press ^ | 02/01/17 | David Hogberg 

If the Senate Majority Leader stays true to form, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is going nowhere
When Senate Democrats confirmed yesterday that they will filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded, “What I would expect from our Democratic friends is that the nominee be handled similarly to Clinton’s and Obama’s first two nominees in their first terms.”
Wow. If I were Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), I’d be peeing my pants.

This is an American

Article V Blog ^ | February 1st 2017 | Rodney Dodsworth 

Amidst the manufactured angst over President Trump’s enforcement of immigration law, I recalled a few passages from Locke in America, by Jerome Huyler. As opposed to today’s social justice nonsense, which demands the acceptance of any and all foreigners, including barbarians intent on our destruction, immigrants to our shores in the latter-18th century had different aspirations. From Huyler:

No sooner does a European arrive, no matter of what condition, than his eyes are opened upon the fair prospects . . . Has he any particular talent or industry? He exerts it in order to procure a livelihood, and it succeeds. Is he a merchant? The avenues of trade are infinite. Is he eminent in any respect? He will be employed and respected. Does he love a country life? Pleasant farms present themselves. Is he a laborer, sober and industrious? He need not go many miles, nor receive many informations before he will be hired, (and) well fed at the table of his employer . . . Does he want uncultivated land? Thousands of acres present themselves . . . Whatever be his talents or inclinations, if they are moderate, he may satisfy them.

He no sooner breathes our air than he forms schemes and embarks in designs he never would have thought of in his own country . . . He begins to feel the effects of a sort of resurrection. Hitherto he had not lived, simply vegetated. He now feels himself a man because he is treated as such . . . Judge what an alteration there must arise in the mind and thought of this man. He begins to forget his former servitude and dependence. His heart involuntarily swells and glows. If he is a good man, . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Not All Refugees Are Welcome ^ | February 1, 2017 | Michelle Malkin 

For years, left-wingers would contest my use of the term "open borders lobby" because, they sternly rebuked me, nooooobody in America seriously believes in open borders.
This weekend, thousands of anti-Trump liberals took to the streets, airports and college campuses chanting "all are welcome" and shrieking "let them in" to protest White House executive orders enforcing our borders. In case their position wasn't clear enough, the mobs bellowed:
"No borders, no nations, f--- deportations!"
"No walls, no borders, f--- executive orders!"
Militant mayors in Seattle, Denver and New York City re-declared themselves open-borders sanctuaries -- or as I call them, outlaw cities. All of California will now consider declaring itself a "sanctuary state." Radical progressive companies vowed to hire 10,000 refugees (Starbucks), provide free housing to refugees (Airbnb) and subsidize left-wing legal efforts to fight President Trump's refugee moratorium and enhanced visa-holder vetting (Lyft).
Reasonable people can argue about the details and implementation of Trump's policies. But the John Lennon-addled "Imagine there's no country" crowd is post-reason. Their treacle is treacherous.
No, nitwits, not all refugees are welcome here.
Muslim extremist refugees seeking to wage jihad on our soil and kill all infidels are not welcome here.
Anti-American refugees seeking to transform our society and culture into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.
Misogynist refugees who treat their (multiple) wives as second-class citizens and subjugate their daughters (who are vulnerable to "honor killings" for the slightest transgressions) are not welcome here.
Jobless refugees seeking to soak up our tax dollars while griping about our lack of generosity are not welcome here.
In 2014, New England mayors from both parties pleaded with the Obama administration to enact a refugee resettlement freeze as the flood of unassimilated newcomers strained their schools and municipal resources. "I have enough urban issues to deal with. Enough is enough," Springfield, Massachusetts mayor Domenic Sarno, a Democrat, declared at the time. "You can't keep concentrating poverty on top of poverty."
President Trump understands what the Pollyanna protesters of his immigration enforcement reforms simply cannot or will not comprehend: America needs a break.
We cannot be responsible hosts when our immigration and entrance system is in shambles. Homeland security officials and inspectors general have warned for decades that our consular offices are filled with corrupt and incompetent clerks; our computer systems are outdated; criminal background checks have been abandoned wholesale; the deportation and removal apparatus has been sabotaged by pro-illegal immigration ideologues; and our southern border is overrun by drug cartel violence, human trafficking and misery.
We already grant 1 million legal permanent residencies to people from around the world every year. That's expected to increase to 10.5 million green cards by 2025. Add in between 11 million and 30 million aliens here illegally, along with an estimated annual influx of 70,000 asylees; 500,000 foreign students; nearly 700,000 total foreign guest workers (skilled and unskilled, plus their spouses, many of whom are allowed to work here as well); plus more than 350,000 foreign high school and university students, researchers, physicians, and summer work travelers on J-1 exchange visitor visas; 66,000 visas for nonagricultural temporary foreign workers; and 117,000 slots for seasonal agricultural workers.
Section 7 of President Trump's executive order calls for full construction of the long-delayed biometric entry-exit tracking system -- which Congress and both parties have promised to do since the 1990s, but have failed to complete since the 9/11 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States recommended it 13 years ago. The tourism industry, foreign governments, the ACLU, universities and the immigration lawyers' lobby have all conspired to prevent this meaningful tracking system from coming online. An estimated 40 percent of all aliens here illegally are visa overstayers.
It is not "fascist," "racist" or "xenophobic" to close our front door to tens of thousands more while we get our own house in order. It is self-preservationist.

It’s Escalating: Defiance and Calls for Violence among Democrats

American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2017 | J. Robert Smith 

From New York to California, to a Screen Actors Guild ceremony, Democrats are stepping up their calls to defy President Trump’s executive actions to close the nation’s porous borders and make America safer from terrorists. Making America safer is exactly what they’re opposing, blubbery words about compassion and inclusion aside. Actor David Harbour has even called for assault. Will a call to arms be next? For Democrats and the left (one in the same), peace and love have gone the way of tie-dyed shirts and bellbottoms.
In the immediate wake of Trump’s inauguration, violence erupted. Leftists angered that Trump was president took to the streets, hurling rocks and employing David Harbour’s method of catharsis.
On the heels of the protest violence, came the Million Gals March. Intimations of violence were elevated as celebs -- Madonna and Ashley Judd, notably -- spewed vitriol to a national audience. Madonna’s dream about blowing up the White House (with the president in it, doubtless) was swept away by the MSM as hyperbole. Yet a worldly 58-year-old diva shouldn’t be lightly dismissed as a complete idiot. Madonna knows plenty about audiences and followings. Her words act as cues.
Then Ashley Judd, in a lewd and hate-filled rant that, one imagines, was supposed to be some sort of ode for the ages, proclaimed her “nastiness.” In sum, her vehemence and language are easily construed as incitements to violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

President Trump Is Saying: I Will Protect America FIRST!

IWB ^ | Pamela Williams 

Remember all the promises Obama made but never executed? We have a new President now, and he is ready to put his pen where his mouth is.

Remember what President Trump ran on? Didn’t he say, “I will put AMERICA FIRST.” And that is exactly what he is doing. You can count on Trump to do what he says, even if it is unpopular with the citizens, he knows why his voters chose him.

Obama spent 8 years commending terrorists by not acknowledging their works. He opened the United States up to those who wanted to destroy it, by not acknowledging them as terrorists. He seemingly apologized for Americans, and he made us feel we were delusional to think we were in danger. He handed us to the globalists without hesitation.

Obama conducted half-way military interventions, and he thought Americans would not notice. He cut back on our military and fired Generals who questioned him. He made the US a target for radical Islamic terrorists, and he would not even speak the truth. He destroyed legitimate rulers who were fighting terrorists. Half of Libya is now run by ISIS or al Qaeda allies. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood come to power in Egypt. I could go on and on, but I will say this President Trump will not follow in his footsteps.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

About 900 State Department officials sign protest memo: (YOU'RE FIRED) ^ | 01-31-2017 | Staff 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About 900 U.S. State Department officials signed an internal dissent memo protesting a travel ban by U.S. President Donald Trump on refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries, a source familiar with the document said on Tuesday, in a rebellion against the new president's policies.

A senior State Department official confirmed the memorandum had been submitted to acting Secretary of State Tom Shannon through the department's "dissent channel," a process in which officials can express unhappiness over policy (

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Monday he was aware of the memo but warned career diplomats that they should either "get with the program or they can go."

A draft of the dissent memo seen by Reuters argued that the executive order would sour relations with affected countries, inflame anti-American sentiment and hurt those who sought to visit the United Spates for humanitarian reasons.

It said the policy "runs counter to core American values of non-discrimination, fair play and extending a warm welcome to foreign visitors and immigrants.

Trump on Friday signed an executive order that temporarily bans refugees and people from seven Muslim-majority countries, sparking tumult at U.S. airports and protests in major American cities.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Liberals' Great Nonwhite Hope

American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2017 | Richard F. Miniter 

After eight years of a permanently aggrieved minority president in the White House liberals, were convinced they getting another pony for Christmas.

But November 8th arrived and the bottom fell out of the tub. No pony. The only transition Hillary Rodham Clinton was to make was into a “splat” after she swan dived off the high board into an empty swimming pool at the Javits Center. An outcome which stunned not only her own party, the pundits, the chattering class on the networks, the polls, the Las Vegas point spread but the uncanny Mike Lindell look-a-like Larry J. Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

It doesn’t get more embarrassing than that.

But yet jaws set tightly, lips pressed into a thin line with a pink knit pussy hat pulled low, liberals are determined to persevere. They will just not stop coming on. Why? Well it’s because as David Harsanyi put it in The Federalist a couple of years ago the Left believes that:

Even in defeat, liberals are predestined for victory. The intellectual case for progressivism is unassailable. The potency of their moral case makes them unstoppable. Demography is destiny. Old people die. White people disappear. The trajectory set.
Or as Nikita Khrushchev put it “history is on our side.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

White House freezes out CNN

NY Post ^ | February 1, 2017 | Mark Moore 

CNN, which President Trump has accused of reporting “fake news,” is getting frozen out of appearances by members of the administration.
“We’re sending surrogates to places where we think it makes sense to promote our agenda,” a White House official told Politico, adding the ban is not permanent.

But a CNN reporter had a different take on the snub.

“They’re trying to cull CNN from the herd,” the person told the website.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer denied that CNN was being ignored, saying he’s called on the news network’s reporters at press briefings.
But he said it’s at his discretion.

“I’m not going to sit around and engage with people who have no desire to actually get something right,” he said during an event at George Washington University this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The media who cried 'despotism' ^ 

Once upon a time there was a large media class in a great republic. It contained reporters, pundits, and opinion formers of various types, who had once been respected. While the populace of that republic was busy raising families and working, this media class was sent out to watch over a swamp which, since the republic's founding, had been regarded as a possible source of tyranny. Its job was to chatter loudly and warn the populace of the approach of despotism.
Sometimes, out in the swamp, the media got sleepy and, in one period of eight years, most members dozed off even though undemocratic dangers loped past them in the form of an illegal war, a blatant lie and other abuses of power. These threats stole in among the populace and feasted, unremarked by the sleeping chatterers.
After this long nap of two sleep cycles, the media awoke and remembered they had a duty. But they were groggy and couldn't remember precisely what it was. So it determined to make as much noise as possible and to point out despotic dangers even where there were none.
Many new creatures were moving through the swamp. The media found them ugly, and didn't like them at all. Their response was mostly a mixture of snobbery and fear for their jobs. They decided to raise the alarm even though their job was to do so only at the approach of genuine threats to liberty and self-governance. Like young children thinking every noise at night is a witch or a goblin, the swamp guardians thought they detected abuse of power in every shadow.
Over there! That strange shape, half seen and entirely misperceived, looked like fascism. They just knew the wolves were coming. So they let out a scream.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

In "sanctuary" fight, Abbott cuts off funding to Travis County

texas tribune ^ | 2/1/17 | PATRICK SVITEK 

Gov. Greg Abbott has followed through on his threat to cut off state funding for Travis County over its new "sanctuary" policy.

Abbott's office said Wednesday it has canceled criminal justice grants it usually administers to the county, whose sheriff, Sally Hernandez, recently announced her department would reduce its cooperation with federal immigration authorities when they request an inmate be flagged for possible deportation.

The policy was set to go into effect Wednesday.

The move appears to target about $1.5 million Travis County was due to receive this year from the criminal justice division of the governor’s office. The division doled out $1.8 million to the county last year and has already paid out roughly $300,000 in 2017.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Grieving mother tells Pelosi her son was tortured to death by illegals.

Canada Free Press ^ | 02/01/17 | Robert Laurie 

Maximum Pelosi: an absolutely despicable human being!

 Pelosi tells her illegals are 'law abiding citizens'!

Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace. She’s an embarrassment, and she needs to be removed from office. We could probably offer a thousand examples of this horrific woman’s incompetence, ignorance, and arrogance, but what she said at last night’s Pelosi Town Hall takes the cake.

Trump Means the End of Liberal Small-Ball Governance

American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2017 | Christopher Chantrill 

After a week of President Trump, one thing is clear. We are not playing small ball in America anymore.

The whole point of small ball, from basketball to baseball to poker to politics, is that you don’t do big plays and risky things. You aim to win through cunning and deception and your mastery of the rules.
Small ball fits the liberal agenda because Americans really don’t want what liberals are offering. Liberals tell the American people that nothing will really change with ObamaCare, and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Same with gay marriage. All that stuff was above Obama’s pay grade until it wasn’t. Everything is done by deception.
Obviously, President Trump doesn’t believe in small ball. He believes in big ball. He believes in in-your-face executive orders. He believes in Steve Bannon calling the New York Times to tell the Carlos Slim kids to put it where the sun don’t shine. He believes in stopping Muslim immigration until we know what is going on -- as of 4:30 p.m. Friday.
And Americans have never seen anything like it.
How did Donald Trump grow a pair like that? Good question. It is another thing that the media and the establishment got wrong.
Remember when they were sneering at him for his bankruptcies, implying that being a bankrupt was low-rent and disqualifying in a national politician?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

President Trump Reportedly Toying With Deporting Immigrants On Public Assistance

This Week ^ | 3:32 p.m. ET 1.31.17 

Per draft executive orders, President Trump's administration may be looking to roll out more restrictions on immigrants planning to enter the U.S., as well as those already in the country:
The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and develop standards for “determining” whether an immigrant can be deported after five years if that person receives a certain amount of public assistance, including Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid.
The second order, titled "Executive Order on Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs" calls for "eliminating" the "jobs magnet" that is driving illegal immigration to the United States, according to a copy obtained by The Post. The order would rescind any work visa provisions for foreign nationals found not to be in "the national interest" or in violation of U.S. immigration laws.

The drafts are apparently just being passed around by administration officials at the moment, and the White House refused to confirm the orders' authenticity. The Washington Post also noted it's not entirely clear if Trump will actually go ahead with either of these actions.
Yet, the orders seem to fall in line with Trump's most hard-line pledges on immigration. One draft order argues "the unlawful employment of aliens has had a devastating impact on the wages and jobs of American workers," though economists generally agree that immigration is more beneficial than harmful to the economy. The orders also suggest that "households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use federal means-tested public benefits," another claim The Washington Post noted is not supported by evidence.
If enacted, The Post reported the orders "would significantly restrict all types of immigration and foreign travel to the United States, expanding bars on entry to the country that Trump ordered last week."

New poll: Trump's travel ban is more popular than you thought!

Washington Examiner ^ | 1/31/17 | David Fredosso 

Here's a brand new poll on President Trump's travel ban from Reuters/Ipsos, which was somehow taken today and yesterday:

The Jan. 30-31 poll found that 49 percent of American adults said they either "strongly" or "somewhat" agreed with Trump's order, while 41 percent "strongly" or "somewhat" disagreed and another 10 percent said they don't know.

So, yeah, most people are fine with a pause on new admissions from the seven countries in the executive order. Perhaps that makes sense — most of the stated opposition to it has to do with a perception that it's actually much more than what it purports to be, a back-door method of implementing the "Muslim ban" Trump had talked about early in the presidential primaries.

Perhaps a lot of minds would change if the ban was extended in time or expanded to cover more majority-Muslim countries to boster that perception. That said, opposition to the Trump E.O. was probably a lot easier to organize, and broader than it might have been otherwise, because of the sloppy, incompetent way in which it was implemented. This was our biggest objection, that the order seemed to be playing with lives and accomplishing little beyond making a point for a political constituency.

Any policy that ensnares large numbers of green-card holders and blindsides people who already had permission to travel to the U.S. (including people who helped U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan) is going to create practical problems, to say nothing of the political problems.

Still, as with things Trump, the poll suggests that this policy just isn't the political disaster that most people in the media had assumed. A large number of people in big cities with airports don't seem to like it, and for now that's apparently as far as it goes.

Before Trump Executive Order, Obama Officials Warned Islamic State Would Use ‘Refugee Flows’...

Breitbart National Security ^ | 1/31/17 | Frances Martel 

As experts and politicians debate the merits of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting refugee flows from terror-prone nations, few have addressed the many warnings prior to Trump’s assumption of the presidency that Islamic State terrorist have long planned to infiltrate Western nations disguised as refugees.
Trump’s executive order, which many in the left have falsely described as a “Muslim ban,” temporarily halts the entry of individuals from seven nations listed in the Obama-era Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015: Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen. The government is set to restore entry of refugees from these nations contingent upon establishing an orderly and competent screening process to prevent terrorists from posing as refugees and entering the United States.
In this sense, the executive order addresses a concern former CIA director John Brennan presented before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2016, shortly after the massacre at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub orchestrated by an Islamic State sympathizer.
“ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West,” Brennan said, using an alternate acronym for the Islamic State. “And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump Challenges the Internationalist Order

Frontpage ^ | 1/31/17 | Bruce Thornton 

A job begun is half done, as the Romans used to say. Restoring our nation’s pride in its exceptionalism, and keeping our government’s obligation to put our country’s interests and security first, is job number one for the new president. After just one week in office, President Trump has made a good start at dismantling the internationalist order that for nearly a century has tried to weaken and subordinate national sovereignty and identity to globalist institutions. The hysterical response of the global elites and this country’s fellow-travelers tells us Trump is drawing blood.
Trump’s executive orders and comments on securing our southern border, renegotiating NAFTA, and banning refugees from jihadist-infested countries––from a list drawn up during the Obama administration by the way–– drew the usual blustering dudgeon. Mexico’s complaints about Trump’s comments were laughably hypocritical. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said, “Mexico does not believe in walls.” Of course they don’t believe in their northern border because Mexico uses illegal immigration into the U.S. to get rid of people for whom they have no jobs or opportunities, and from whom they secure $25 billion a year in remittances, more than the revenues from the sale of oil.
But the last border you want to try to cross illegally is Mexico’s southern border, notorious not for any wall, but for the brutality, including torture and rape, inflicted on those caught.  Even Mexican-Indian citizens are apprehended and abused as suspected illegal aliens from Central America. This animus against immigrants is no surprise, given the harsh protections of citizenship enshrined in Mexico’s constitution, which makes illegal entry a felony.  And there are numerous draconian restrictions on legal immigrants, such as prohibitions on owning property and serving in government or the military. Or consider Article 33, which states, “The Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.” Compare that with the extensive legal protections for even criminal illegal aliens in the U.S. The Mexican president is merely mouthing globalist pieties in order to serve his own country’s national interests.
The same hypocrisy is evident in the mainly European complaints about Trump’s moratorium on immigration from certain countries. Last week foreign immigrants from such places who had been detained at airports were blessed with restraining orders by two federal judges in Virginia and New York. The ACLU applauded this slap-down of Trump’s “unconstitutional Muslim ban,” a willful distortion of the plain text of the executive order. And as a globalist outfit congenitally hostile to its own country, the ACLU seems to think there is a Constitutional “civil liberty” for anybody from anywhere to enter the U.S.
But isn’t Trump violating the ban on “religious tests” in the Constitution, as many commentators say in their condemnation of Trump’s actions, because the countries on his list are overwhelmingly Muslim? But as usual, they’re flat wrong: Article 6.3 says “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It says nothing about immigration. The president can block entry into the U.S. of any group he determines represents a threat to the nation’s security, or even that he finds politically troublesome––like the Cubans intercepted at sea, whom by law the U.S. regularly admitted, but Obama began sending back to a thug regime a few days before he left office.
Abroad, criticisms of Trump’s actions were equally hypocritical and self-serving. According to the AP, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault intoned in response to Trump, “We have signed international obligations, so welcoming refugees fleeing war and oppression forms part of our duties.” There’s suicidal internationalism in a nutshell. And the statement is duplicitous, since the majority of the immigrants fleeing the Middle East are mostly young male economic refugees, with a significant admixture of jihadist terrorists. And even those not bent on mayhem will likely not assimilate to the customs, mores, and national identity of the country that lets them in, thus becoming a recruitment pool for jihadist proselytizers.
Outgoing socialist French President François Hollande, who enjoys an approval rating of four percent, scolded Trump for stoking “populism,” the biggest dirty word in the transnational globalist lexicon, and “extremism,” which is just a synonym for populism. Hollande continues, “When he rejects the arrival of refugees, while Europe has done its duty, we should respond to him.” These comments are preposterous, given the “extremism” of the slaughter wreaked in France’s streets by unassimilated Muslim immigrants and their children. And don’t forget the no-go immigrant “zones” police enter only with massive force, the appropriation of public spaces by Muslims for daily prayers in defiance of France’s treasured laïcicité, and the relentless violent assaults on French Jews. Is that how the French “does their duty” to their own citizens?
But Hollande is simply kowtowing to the global supranational elite, who find national identity a barrier to their power and sappy “we are the world” sentiments. And like Mexico’s president, he is a hypocrite, particularly in his comments about Trump’s “protectionist measures,” given that 40 percent of the entire E.U. budget goes to agricultural subsidies, with France as the biggest beneficiary. Scratch any globalist’s high-flown rhetoric, and you’ll find a grubby nationalist interest.
Then there’s Germany’s foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who preached, “’Love thy neighbor’ is part of this (American Christian) tradition, the act of helping others.” How did that work out for the thousands of women groped and raped in Cologne, or the 12 Berliners mown down in December by a jihadist driving a truck? Not to mention the daily harassment, crimes, and assaults perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. And it’s particularly rich to hear the gospel preached by someone from a country that has abandoned Christianity and replaced it with pacifism and la dolce vita. Of course Gabriel was being sarcastic, exploiting Christian doctrine in order to perfume the idealistic transnationalism of the E.U.––one that has served Germany’s economic interests very well, even as it has ravaged the southern E.U. countries.
Forget all the moral preening and appeals to lofty principles supposedly animating all these complaints. What Trump’s election and the Brexit vote have done is to open wide cracks in the international order, exposing its failures and hypocrisy. That’s why the European ruling class and their progressive American acolytes are full of nervous bluster––because they see the return to nationalist identity and pride growing in their own countries as a challenge to their power and privilege. In France, Hollande will likely be replaced either by Marine le Pen, an unabashed nationalist and patriot, or François Fillon, a cultural conservative and economic liberal who for all his E.U. happy-talk has sworn to push back against statist bureaucracies. Other E.U. states as well have populist parties fighting back against the entitled E.U. elite and calling for a restoration of national identity. These movements, if electorally successful, will widen the cracks Brexit opened up.
In the larger perspective, the internationalist order is tottering because it was built on a fundamental incoherence and distortion of human nature. A transnational political-economic-legal order comprising sovereign nations will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The diversity of the world’s nations and their interests, cultures, and beliefs means there is no unifying shared set of principles to bind such diversity. There are only treaties, which can be abandoned by any nation at will, and shifting mutual interests. There is no “one world,” no “citizens of the world,” no permanent “harmony of interests,” only provisional ones that change with circumstances. The first obligation of a country’s leaders is to serve their own people’s interests, which are different from, and often contrary to, those of other countries. And to do this means first securing the borders that define a nation’s territory, and controlling immigration in order to protect the nation’s sovereignty and particular identity.
Since the heady first days of the Soviet Union’s exit from history, international idealism has been met with challenges it serially failed to answer, particularly a resurgent Islamic jihadism. Thus many citizens of the West are returning to their own national identities, foundational principles and beliefs, and unifying cultural mores to create the solidarity necessary for defending themselves against those who want to destroy them. Immigration and border controls are the obvious place to start this renewal.
Trump was elected partly because he grasped this historical moment. Now he has begun the job of turning campaign rhetoric into fact. Let’s hope Congress and the people help him finish the job.

Tom Cotton Suggests Sergeant At Arms Should Force Dems To Vote On Trump Nominees

Daily Caller ^ | 1/31/17 | Rachel Stolzfuss 

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton suggested Republicans should literally force Democrats to vote on President Trump’s nominees Tuesday, by ordering the sergeant at arms to “haul” them into the committee room.
“I don’t know how long they plan to do this,” Cotton said on the Senate floor, after Democrats began a “boycott” of committee-level votes on several of Trump’s nominees. “I don’t know if they intend to abscond out of the District, if we’re going to have to vote to have the sergeant at arms track them down, haul them to work to do their business.”
The sergeant at arms takes orders from the Senate majority leader, currently Republican Mitch McConnell, who has the authority to enforce a quorum call. If Republicans agree to support the move, McConnell could order the sergeant at arms to physically bring Democrats into the room for a vote, although the move is somewhat unlikely.
Nevertheless, Cotton remarked on the sergeant at arms standing in the chamber: “He has a distinguished record in military and law enforcement. He could probably do that effectively.”

Memo to the unhinged: Tom Brady owes no apology for backing Trump

The Hill ^ | 1/31/2017 | Jos Concha 

Tom Brady owes America an apology for probably voting for the candidate who won the 2016 presidential election.

That's what several sports journalists and professors are demanding this week of the three-time Super Bowl MVP and four-time champion. This kind of rhetoric has never preceded the 50 Super Bowls prior to this one of any of the thousands of players fortunate enough to make it to sports' biggest stage.
But this is 2017, the year many adults have seemingly lost their minds. For more proof, just check out these headlines:
Yahoo! Sports: For Tom Brady, there's no avoiding Donald Trump
during Super Bowl week
USA Today: Tom Brady has some explaining to do on Donald Trump
Deadspin: I'm Fed Up With Tom Brady
Huffington Post: Tom Brady’s Politics Are More Un-American Than Colin Kaepernick’s Have Ever Been
SB Nation: The Patriots have a Trump problem
You get the idea. Of course, Brady never publicly endorsed Trump. Never campaign with him once. But he was caught with a "Make America Great Hat" in his locker more than 18 months ago, which among some of the elite is considered treason.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Hillary May Give President Trump a Second Term

FrontPage ^ | January 31, 2017 | Daniel Greenfield 

How Hillary May Give President Trump a Second Term The Clintons aren’t done damaging the Democrats. January 31, 2017 Daniel Greenfield Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

When all the campaign booze was downed and the last “I’m With Her” balloons were popped, bleary Democrat hacks rose from stained couches to try and explain the election to the rest of their party.
Two explanations made the rounds like the last champagne bottle for a victory that never came.
Hillary was a bad candidate. Her shady financial dealings made her untrustworthy. The more she tried to appeal to everyone, the less she appealed to anyone. She was better at hitting up big donors at glitzy parties than at interacting with working class voters. And the huge campaign machine they financed was no substitute for voter excitement.
Hillary was a historic candidate who would be sitting in the Oval Office right now if it hadn’t been for the FBI and the Russians. President Trump is illegitimate and must be impeached. Hillary was not defeated by her flaws. Instead she was a wonderful leader who was stymied by a rigged election.
The first explanation was championed by the Sandernistas of the far left. Their case was straightforward. Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate. Bernie would have won. The Democrats needed to move forward by burying Hillary’s machine and replacing it with the even more radical Bernie left.
But the Clinton machine had no interest in being buried.
The Clintons are not just two greedy politicians. They’re a brand and an industry. The huge sums of money they raised went to subsidize a whole network of loyalists. And then there were the many friends who had gotten jobs based on the strength of their connections to Clintonworld.
It wasn’t just about the S.S. Hillary sinking into the cold waters of Chesapeake Bay. Hillary’s defeat endangered the positions of all her friends who had schemed, plotted and broken the rules to get her this far; the leaders of Democrat outfits in states across the country, bundlers who threw a lot of other people’s money into a giant hole and lobbyists who got by on the strength of their Clinton connections.
That $1.2 billion campaign cost was the tip of the iceberg. Billions had been plowed into Clintonworld.
They couldn’t and wouldn’t accept the blame for backing a bad candidate. So they lied. They insisted that she hadn’t lost. Hillary had been illegitimately denied the White House by a vast conspiracy.
A vast conspiracy involving the FBI, the Russians, the Electoral College and voter suppression.
The conspiracy has been examined and debated in detail. The motive for manufacturing this conspiracy has not. Its obvious goal is to delegitimize President Trump, but it also allows Hillary and her people to evade responsibility for their disastrous defeat. And that is why it really exists.
The Clintons have done enormous damage to their party. And they aren’t done wrecking it yet.
The conspiracy theory quickly became how Democrats explained Hillary’s defeat. And it was the radical left that was in the unusual position of having to argue against a conspiracy theory. Some on the radical left had their own ties to Russia. Others, like Michael Moore, who had predicted that the neglect of the working class would lead to Trump’s victory, saw the Democrats going down a dead end.
But the radical left had radicalized the Democrats. And radicals are suckers for conspiracy theories. Political extremism had pulled the party into paranoid fever swamps in which anything was possible. The media’s biased reporting and bad polls made Trump’s victory seem as if it should never have happened.
It was easy to go on listening to the same media outlets and believing that it really didn’t happen.
Denial took over. Time and money were wasted on insane and pointless recounts, harassment of Electors and finally attempts to block certification of the results. Democrats who believed that these were plans, instead of scams that had no chance of working, emerged from working frantically for the impossible even more convinced that Hillary had been robbed and the election had been rigged.
The left’s greatest weakness is an inability to accept responsibility and learn from its mistakes. Its economic, political and racial theories are already conspiracy theories that assign the blame for social injustice to millions of people based on their income or race. It demands absolute power for its leaders while refusing to admit that human beings are flawed and, regardless of ideology, will abuse power.
If its members could do that, they would be much more likely to become conservatives.
And so the real beneficiaries of this attack on our political system were the Clintons and their people.
Despite the outward show of bipartisanship, Bill Clinton has been pushing the conspiracy theory in private conversations. And Hillary and her people maintain a strategic ambiguity in all things.
Meanwhile David Brock, the most malicious figure in Clintonworld, has put together a blueprint calling for the impeachment of Trump. If Hillary were to make a very unlikely third try at the White House that would be about the only way to build a narrative in which she has anything resembling a chance.
The current Clinton objective is to assert control over the “autopsy” of their defeat. The Clintons are willing to let Obama have the activist clout of the OFA. They realize that their non-profit empire is on shaky ground. But they want to be able to write their own obituary. If they can do that, then they can set the terms for their political comeback and keep at least some of Clintonworld alive.
The Clintons may never run for public office again. But they know the value of shifting the blame.
When the Dems seized on a conspiracy theory to explain President Bush’s victory, they redeemed Gore. And Gore was able to make a comeback and amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Clintons are already very rich. But they could always be even richer. They need the Dems to see Hillary as a courageous candidate with an important message who, like Gore, was beaten in a rigged election.
Then the Clintons can move on to the next stage of their grifting enterprise.
Gore’s personal fortune came at a high cost to his party. Instead of understanding why Bush won, Dems descended into conspiracy theories about Florida and the Supreme Court. They dismissed President Bush as an idiot who couldn’t possibly have won on his own. And so they lost to him a second time.
If Democrats insist on believing that Trump only won because of FBI Director Comey and the Russians, they will be just as unready to face him in the next election as they were in this one.
And the real Hillary legacy may be that she will have handed Trump not just one election, but two.

Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch

NYT ^ | NEAL K. KATYA JAN. 31, 2017 

I am hard-pressed to think of one thing President Trump has done right in the last 11 days since his inauguration. Until Tuesday, when he nominated an extraordinary judge and man, Neil Gorsuch, to be a justice on the Supreme Court.

The nomination comes at a fraught moment. The new administration’s executive actions on immigration have led to chaos everywhere from the nation’s airports to the Department of Justice. They have raised justified concern about whether the new administration will follow the law. More than ever, public confidence in our system of government depends on the impartiality and independence of the courts.

There is a very difficult question about whether there should be a vote on President Trump’s nominee at all, given the Republican Senate’s history-breaking record of obstruction on Judge Merrick B. Garland — perhaps the most qualified nominee ever for the high court. But if the Senate is to confirm anyone, Judge Gorsuch, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, should be at the top of the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Poll: Public Overwhelmingly Supports Trump Push to Limit Migration ^ | 31 Jan 2017 

Donald Trump’s pro-American immigration reform is getting strong majority support from the public, despite the left’s portrayal of the policy as hateful and incompetent, and despite Democratic voters’ determination to obstruct the new president. Reuters commissioned the poll and then tried to hide the resulting good news for Trump under a misleading headline, “Exclusive: Only a third of Americans think Trump’s travel ban will make them more safe.”

But the most direct question in the poll showed a seven-point advantage for Trump’s policy, of 48 support to 41 percent opposition.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Democrats are digging their own grave — and boosting Trump at the same time!

nypost ^ 

Let’s agree that President Trump’s travel ban on visitors from seven nations was a sensible idea hobbled by flaws, especially regarding green-card holders and dual citizens. Let’s also agree we haven’t seen a rollout this clumsy since the debut of ObamaCare, which was far more serious because it penalized millions of Americans while Trump’s order inconvenienced hundreds of foreign nationals.

Still, we can assume, based on past performance, that Trump will learn from the mistakes. His fierce determination to be a successful president cannot coexist with rookie blunders.
But what about the other players in the drama? Can we say the media will now correct its excess of bile and cover Trump as a legitimate president and not as an invasive species?
No, no, no. On the contrary, we must say that Trump aide Steve Bannon was on target when he called the Washington media “the opposition party.”
Don’t take his word for it. Stick a toe into the toxic sludge that passes for straight-news coverage in The Washington Post, The New York Times and others.
Look for the use of tell words like “Muslim ban” to describe an executive order that is no such thing. Look for hero worship of protesters, immigrants, refugees, lawyers rushing to the barricades and congressional critics.
Look, too, at the Twitter feeds of editors and reporters from those papers and the major networks. You’ll see their embrace of everything anti-Trump, further evidence they are part of a movement to obstruct the president, not cover him.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Pelosi Confronted by Mother of Illegal-Immigrant Victim (gives nonsensical response)

YouTube ^ 

CNN host Jake Tapper called on Laura for an audience question about sanctuary cities. Laura shared how her son had been "tortured," "tied up like an animal," and set on fire by an illegal immigrant in 2010.
"I am not a one-story mother. This happens every day because there are no laws enforcing the border," Laura said. "How do you reconcile in your head about allowing people to disavow the law?"
"The second part of my question is this: if you need to go home tonight and line up your babies as you say, and your grandbabies, which one of them could you look in their eyes today, and tell them that they're expendable for another foreign person to have a nicer life? Which one would you look to say, you, my child, are expendable for someone else to come over here and not follow the law."
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
Pelosi was visibly thrown off by the blunt question and expressed her condolences to Laura.
"I commend you for sharing your story. I can't even imagine," Pelosi said.
"You can't," Laura shot back.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Democrats' New Opposition Strategy: Obstruction!

Investor's Business Daily ^ | Staff 

Politics: President Trump's selection for the Supreme Court won't get a fair hearing from the Democrats. No, that's not an opinion. The Democrats themselves say so. The GOP better get ready — this is what they'll face for the next four years.
As of late Tuesday, no one knew who would be Trump's pick for the high court. But, heck, it really didn't matter.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley made clear it doesn't matter who it is: If it's not President Obama's earlier pick, Judge Merrick Garland, he'll filibuster.
"This is a stolen seat," said Merkley, who has the distinction of being wrong both on his reading of the law and on the Congress' own rules. "This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat. We will use every lever in our power to stop this."
And he made clear he's not alone in some kind of quixotic quest. "A very large number of my colleagues will be opposed," he said.
Then there's the case of the nominations of Dr. Tim Price as Health and Human Services secretary and Steve Mnuchin as the next Treasury secretary. They were scheduled to be approved Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee and sent to the floor or a vote so that President Trump could get his government up and running.
But the Democrats didn't show. Literally.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don't lecture me!


See the problem?


Go Away!




A simple question


Pissed Off


Law Degree!


Liberals CHEERED!


An Honor




Not welcome here!


Let us in!






WTF, over?




Not Logical




Disturbing News