Betrayal

Yesterday, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. was ordered by Barack Obama to abstain in the vote for a resolution that condemns Israel for its West Bank settlement policy, thereby ensuring its passage. Power wrote a book on the abdication of responsibility by the U.S. in preventing genocides. Then she proceeded to help her boss abdicate his responsibility in preventing the genocide in Syria. She has now augmented that disgrace with this vote empowering terrorists at the expense of the only democracy in the Middle East and her nation's staunchest ally.

Some Twitter commentary --

Arthur Schwartz -- Barack Obama just spat in the face of Israel & sided with a bunch of terrorists. That's his legacy. He's a worthless piece of garbage.

Kurt Schlichter -- Obama is a fucking disgrace.

Groups who have stood against the Jewish people:
Rome.
The Nazis.
USSR.
The Obama Administration.
All consigned to the ash heap of history.

Michael Goldfarb -- Obama just tore up the rule book on his way out the door. Good…let’s gut the UN and create our own facts on the ground.

Richard Kemp -- A day of infamy in the UN Security Council: Obama stabs Israel in the back, increases likelihood of violence, reduces prospects for peace.

Philip Klein -- Obama cool with Syrian use of chemical weapons and Iran building nukes. But Jewish housing construction MUST BE STOPPED!

Khaled Abu Toameh -- Palestinian Islamic Jihad praises UN resolution, says it will pave way for isolating and boycotting Israel.

Omri Ceren -- Organization statements praising Obama admin screwing Israel at UN:
- jstreetdotorg
- Hamas
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad

neontaster -- Maybe if Israel threw more homosexuals off roofs and funded proxy attacks against American troops then Obama would be more sympathetic.

Yair Rosenberg -- If not for the United Nations, where would we be able to hear Venezuela lecture the Jewish state about upstanding moral conduct?

Katie Pavlich -- Hey Congress, it's far past time to defund the UN.

When Obama leaves office, it will be a good day. So sick of this crap.

Ben Shapiro -- On behalf of Jews who care about Israel, Mr. President, let me just say, GFY.

Sean Davis -- Obama hates Israel as much as he loves ceding control of the Middle East to Iran.

Brad Thor -- From sending the Churchill bust back, to stabbing Israel in the back - it ends as ignominiously as it began...

Victoria Coates -- Today, POTUS, John Kerry and Ambassador Power joined the long line of cowards who stood by and did nothing while a mob attacked the Jews.

Larry Elder -- Mr. Obama, it's not complicated. Palestinians lay down their arms=peace. Israelis do so=genocide. Any questions?

Benjamin Haddad -- Obama could have used his last weeks in office to finally confront Russia over Syria, and the hacking. Instead he chose to go after Israel.

Seth Mandel -- While Israel is helping the Syrians that Ambassador Power has abandoned, she votes with despots against Israel. For shame.

Today explained.
 

A lengthier explanation is provided by Stanley Kurtz in an essay he wrote for National Review five years ago (5/26/2011). Note this prophetic passage --

The continuing influence of Obama’s pro-Palestinian sentiments is the best way to make sense of the president’s recent tilt away from Israel. This is why supporters of Israel should fear Obama’s reelection. In 2013, with his political vulnerability a thing of the past, Obama’s pro-Palestinian sympathies would be released from hibernation, leaving Israel without support from its indispensable American defender.

A truly clarifying piece. Read it all.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/268159/pro-palestinian-chief-stanley-kurtz

Donald Trump -- As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.

THAT DAY CAN'T ARRIVE SOON ENOUGH.

Added 12/24 -- Fox News Panel (Goldberg, Hemmingway, Lane, Krauthammer) discuss Obama's disgrace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3xLZnfwEMM

Inconsequential Action

An appropriately scathing critique of Barack Obama's Syria policy from Leon Wieseltier of the left leaning think tank Brookings Institution, writing for the Washington Post.

It is a shameful and incontrovertible fact of our history that during the past eight years the values of rescue, assistance, protection, humanitarianism and democracy have been demoted in our foreign policy and in many instances banished altogether. The ruins of the finest traditions of American internationalism, of American leadership in a darkening world, may be found in the ruins of Aleppo.

...It would be incorrect to analyze our delinquency in Syria in the dichotomously simple terms of action and inaction. The administration creatively pioneered a third option, which it pursued not only in Syria but also in Ukraine and elsewhere: Between action and inaction, it chose inconsequential action. There is the Obama doctrine! We backed moderate Syrian rebels, but not as seriously or as generously as the immoderate Syrian rebels were backed. We sent in small numbers of special operators. The CIA ran a few programs. We acted, in sum, only in ways certain not to affect the outcome. We were strategically feckless. I suspect that the president believes that the United States has no moral right to affect an outcome in another country. I suspect that he regards such decisive action as imperialism, or at least as Iraq-like. What this means in practice is that we will not help people who deserve our help. In the spirit of respecting other societies, we will idly gaze at their destruction. How would disrespecting them be worse?

As a direct or indirect consequence of our refusal to respond forcefully to the Syrian crisis, we have beheld secular tyranny, religious tyranny, genocide, chemical warfare, barrel bombs and cluster bombs, the torture and murder of children, the displacement of 11 million people, the destabilization of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, the ascendancy of Iran in the region, the emergence of Russia as a global power, the diminishment of the American position in the world, the refugee crisis in Europe, the resurgence of fascism in Europe and a significant new threat to the security of the United States. It is amazing how much doing nothing can do, especially when it is we who do nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/aleppos-fall-is-obamas-failure/2016/12/15/5af72640-c30f-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_campaign=Jolt%2012/16/2016&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jolt&utm_term=.6ff8c1fa5f61&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

Even If...

Climate change realist Christopher Monckton (circa 2008) --

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO₂ occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if it were possible that the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Weather Channel founder John Coleman --

Perspective is key.  Earth has vacillated between ice ages and interglacial periods for ever. Warming and cooling is natural, not man-made.

Charles C. W. Cooke observes that the left is looking to embrace conservative principles - federalism, separation of powers, decentralization - in countering Trump.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cooke-left-embraces-conservatism-20161213-story,amp.html

This is very funny. Sonny Bunch explains how James Comey cost Hillary Clinton the election --

http://freebeacon.com/blog/clinton-campaign-blames-james-comey-for-losing/

Signs of degradation. First, getting it right. A NY Times editorial from 1987, arguing for a minimum wage of $0.00. --

The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable - and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/14/opinion/the-right-minimum-wage-0.00.html

And then from 2012, mocking Mitt Romney (as Barack Obama did), for Romney's spot-on assessment of Russia as our number one geopolitical foe --

Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/the-never-ending-cold-war.html

Democratic consultant and former Clinton advisor Paul Begala --

When President Obama mocked Romney in 2012 for saying Russia was top threat, I cheered. Obama was wrong. I was wrong. Mitt was right.

Sean Davis --

Iran is using enriched uranium it bought from Russia which obtained it from the U.S. in a deal that lined a Clinton Foundation donor's pockets.

David French --

I've been in the military and I've taught in the Ivy League. The military is far, far more ideologically diverse than the "elite" academy.

Mark Steyn on John Glenn --

John Glenn was a man of boundless courage and determination: he strapped himself in and stared not just death in the face but death in hideous and unknown ways. Yet he was also an ordinary man, who was called upon to do extraordinary things and rose to the challenge. Today we are unmanned in more than merely the sense of that Luna 2 expedition.

...John Glenn must surely have wondered, as all the astronauts weathered into geezers, how a great nation grew so impoverished in spirit.

Our heroes are old and stooped and wizened, but they are the only giants we have. Today, when we talk about Americans boldly going where no man has gone before, we mean the ladies' bathroom. Progress.

http://www.steynonline.com/7627/the-abandoned-frontier

I can't get enough of these. A woman writes (in the Washington Post!) that her romantic life has been ruined by Donald Trump's election. It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at what, amazingly, is not a parody.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/12/05/trumps-election-stole-my-desire-to-look-for-a-partner/?utm_term=.f237a5a8ba4c

Jonah Goldberg's response to the preceding piece  --

This kind of thing is why the conservative/libertarian view of politics as just one part of life is healthier.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers --

Betsy DeVos actually said, "gay marriage is wrong because “children need a mother and a father to love and care for them”

Regarding Weingarten's comment, David French responded --

When truth is treated like an outrage.

And here is Hillary Clinton in 2004, agreeing with DeVos' view of marriage --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I&feature=youtu.be

From George Will - France tries to mitigate the potential for guilty feelings among those who aborted children by censoring expressions of love and support for those with Down Syndrome. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-to-be-spared-from-guilt/2016/12/02/2d5adc2c-b7ed-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na&utm_term=.aa145d8a8e52

A Muslim tells how he was taught to hate Jews. This video was initially banned by You Tube, because...reasons, but it's since been reinstated. --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCQEmeGfFmY

Kevin Williamson --

Conservatism -- the belief that the state of your life may not be your fault, but it is your problem -- was never going to be popular.

Added 12/15 -- Andrew McCarthy scoffs at the "Russia Hacks Election" narrative.

Here’s the reality: Everyone knows the Russians meddle in our elections, just as they nefariously meddle in much else. That is why it was so reckless of Clinton to keep our nation’s most closely guarded defense secrets on a private, non-secure e-mail system. Up until November 8, Democrats told us there was no reason to be alarmed about such vulnerabilities in the face of likely Russian hacking. Now, hacking is suddenly a crisis — not because the Russians are doing anything different, but because Hillary lost.

Even if the Russians did want Trump to win, what difference, at this point, does it make? The United States is the world’s most consequential nation, so lots of countries figure they have a stake in the outcome of our elections — and some, if they have the requisite capabilities, try in various ways to influence the outcome . . . just as the Obama administration has tried to influence the outcome of Israeli elections, the Brexit referendum, and other foreign contests.

The fact that they think one side or the other would be better for them does not make it so. More to the point, unless there is evidence that the meddlers have fiddled with the vote count, who cares? Under our law, it is permissible to sway the outcome of an election based on false information — just ask Harry Reid. What’s the Democrat-media complaint? That there was too much true information?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443034/russia-election-hacking-charge-vladimir-putin-influence-american-elections

And Kevin Williamson laughs at the Left's obsession with Ayn Rand --

Bring up your undying love of Atlas Shrugged at the typical conservative gathering and people will smile at you and try very hard not to roll their eyes. Some people think of her novels as a kind of guilty adolescent enthusiasm now grown out-of-date, an intellectual mullet, a stage one goes through between the ages of 14 and 20. Some people use Atlas Shrugged as a totem — it had a moment at the cresting of the Tea Party phenomenon. But it is rare to meet actual adult human beings who organize their politics views (or, for pity’s sake, their lives) around Ayn Rand and her views. I don’t think National Review has a single Randian in the house; I’d be surprised if the Weekly Standard did, and if one showed up at Commentary then John Podhoretz would simply mock him out of existence.

Strangely, our progressive friends insist that the Right is entirely in thrall to the ideas of Ayn Rand. Left-leaning writers in places such as New York and Washington tend to be culturally insular — parochial, even — and many of them do not know very many conservatives. I cannot tell you how many times I have met some well-meaning lefty who tells me (thinking it is a compliment!) that I do not seem like one of those people. A young woman once insisted that, as a conservative, I simply must hate homosexuals. At the time, I was living in TriBeCa and working as a theater critic, which is not a very good gay-evasion strategy. People know what they know.

...Strange that a Randian cabal would take Donald Trump as its mascot. Trump, an incompetent casino operator and hotelier who boasted of buying political favors, is practically a Rand villain. He even has the name for it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443033/progressive-ayn-rand-obsession-misguided

"The Only Good Communist..."

Confirmation that conservatives are on the correct side of the ideological divide is emphatically confirmed by comparing the Left and Right responses to the death of one of history's most notorious tyrants, Fidel Castro.

Barack Obama --

At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans - in Cuba and in the United States - with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him. 

For nearly six decades, the relationship between the United States and Cuba was marked by discord and profound political disagreements...

...Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro's family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.

Compare this to Donald Trump's statement --

Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades.

Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.

While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.

Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty.

I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.

With this statement, Trump has already shown himself superior to Obama in his understanding of good vs evil.

Austin Yack compiled a ten worst list of responses to Castro's death - Jimmy Carter, Jeremy Corbin, Michael Higgins, Jesse Jackson, Jean-Claude Juncker, Ban Ki-moon, Enrique Pena Nieto, Barack Obama, Jill Green, Justin Trudeau --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442527/fidel-castro-dead-ten-most-outrageous-reactions

Some notable tweets marking the occasion --

Jeff B/DDHQ (@EsotericCD) tweeted at 10:05 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
The passing of a totalitarian Communist dictator is a great occasion to observe which people are morally decrepit and which are not.

Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) tweeted at 8:57 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Seeing who's fawning over a dead dictator and who's not is a good guide to which political leaders & commentators to respect, and which not.

Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) tweeted at 8:24 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Jimmy Carter, Justin Trudeau, Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone. All who we thought they were.

Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) tweeted at 10:22 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Impossible to take seriously people who think Trump is a threat to freedom when they praise Fidel Castro.

Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) tweeted at 9:17 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
My eight-month-old just looked up at me and said, “Daddy, why are people making excuses for one of history’s most egregious monsters?”

(Cooke is making a parody of the leftist notion that children are fountains of innate knowledge).

Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) tweeted at 10:54 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Cuba's got great health care facilities for foreigners and gvt officials. Regular Cubans...they're SOL. Ask Miami relatives to send aspirin.

Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) tweeted at 10:47 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
President Obama issued a pathetic statement on death of dictator #FidelCastro with no mention of thousands he killed & imprisoned.

David Burge (@iowahawkblog) tweeted at 10:56 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Cuba Libre- official drink of the #CastroDeathParty!
4 oz Coca-Cola
2 oz Bacardi 151
1 oz lime juice
mix with ice while dancing

Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) tweeted at 7:46 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Fidel Castro was a symbol of the struggle for justice in the shadow of empire. Presente!

And some responses to Stein's despicable comment --

Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) tweeted at 9:39 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
GFY

Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) tweeted at 10:33 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Fidel Castro was a symbol of the fact that people of other countries would be better off if America were more committed to liberal empire.

Michael C Moynihan (@mcmoynihan) tweeted at 8:09 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
While you're at it, you should ask for a recount of the last Cuban election. 100% for the incumbent seems a bit fishyTruly amazing how the Communist Party of Cuba won so many elections with 98 or 99% of the vote. They must have been really popular.

Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) tweeted at 11:00 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
We know those (Cuban) elections are legitimate because Jill Stein never demanded a recount.

Matthew Continetti (@continetti) tweeted at 2:37 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
The American Left: Praising a ruthless dictator while undermining democracy with fatuous recalls almost 3 wks after election.

David Freddoso (@freddoso) tweeted at 1:59 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
I just got around to reading PM Trudeau's statement, and I'm suddenly a lot less embarrassed about my country electing Trump.

GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) tweeted at 7:00 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
What we've learned is you can never judge a country by its horrid leader. But enough about Trudeau - so I hear Castro croaked.

Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) tweeted at 10:27 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Media re: Stalin in 1934: we've seen the future and it works!
Media re: Castro in 2016: we've seen the past and it works!

Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) tweeted at 11:30 AM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Nothing says "People's Revolution" like that trademark two-Rolexes-at-once thing Castro favored.

Andrew Klavan (@andrewklavan) tweeted at 0:56 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
You should never say bad things about the dead, only good. Fidel Castro is dead. Good.

Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) tweeted at 9:37 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Fascinating to find out that so many liberals support sending homosexuals to labor camps.

Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) tweeted at 9:47 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
The only tragedy in Castro's death is that it happened several decades too late and that his legacy of terror and cruelty lives on.

Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) tweeted at 9:03 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Obama's statement on Castro's death is a travesty, and reveals the moral emptiness that links American radical leftism and communism.
 
Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) tweeted at 5:55 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Today is a reminder that deep within some social democrats lurks a fear that they are wimps and compromisers and the Communists were right.

Andrew Klavan (@andrewklavan) tweeted at 10:21 PM on Sat, Nov 26, 2016:
Donald Trump demonstrated more moral clarity today than any current world leader. Welcome to bizarro world.
nly tragedy in Castro's death is that it happened several decades too late and that his legacy of terror and cruelty lives on.The only tragedy in Castro's death is that it happened several decades too late and that his legacy of terror and cruelty lives on.The only tragedy in Castro's death is that it happened several decades too late and that his legacy of terror and cruelty lives on.

This and That --

Kevin Williamson wants Hillary Clinton where she belongs - in prison.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442412/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-case-prosecution-lock-her-up

And he looks at the Pelosi model of arrogance politics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442362/nancy-pelosi-moral-crisis-model-politics

Williamson on Castro --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442517/fidel-castro-cuba-librarians-literature-samizdat-united-states-first-amendment

Lee Habeeb writes about Cuban dissident Armando Valladares. Required reading for Castro sycophants. --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442517/fidel-castro-cuba-librarians-literature-samizdat-united-states-first-amendment

National Review editors take on Castro's death. From its style, this piece was almost certainly fully written by Jay Nordlinger.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442491/fidel-castro-death-tyrant-cuba-dictator-justin-trudeau

Andrew McCarthy gives a thumbs up to Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442411/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-nomination-justice-department-should-enforce-law

Conrad Black trashes the Obama legacy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442386/barack-obama-david-remnick-wrong-legacy

The cure for our polarized electorate is federalism --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442376/american-political-polarization-federalism-cure

Progressives' moral certitude blinded them to the possibility of a Trump victory --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442361/progressivism-rebuked-donald-trump-2016-presidential-election

And speaking of moral certitude...Hamilton Actor and VP lecturer Brandon Victor Dixon reveals his moral degeneracy with this tweet (just one of several)  --

St. Patty's day weekend is like Christmas for black dudes who like white chicks. Happy holidays boys.

Boys, huh?

Finally, Rep. Tom Price, Trump's choice for HHS secretary and a forceful opponent of Obamacare writes this about one of the health care law's pernicious effects --
 
In his 2008 campaign for president, then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama repeatedly promised to cut annual health insurance premiums by $2,500. When he took office in 2009, annual family premiums for employer-provided coverage, the most common of private insurance coverage, cost $13,375 according to Kaiser. In 2016, those premiums are $18,142. That’s an increase of $4,767.

With Enemies Like This...

As someone who didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary, of course), I have to admit he's looking a lot better post election. Some of this is due to his team's competent management of the transition (contra MSM reports), but much of it is related to the meltdown by the left over the results of the election. Anti-Trump riots, academic cry-ins, whining about the unfairness of the electoral college, and condescending lectures from Broadway actors are making the PEOTUS look mature, calm and in control by comparison. As several commentators have pointed out, the left's collective tantrum is having the unintended effect of cementing Trump's support, as well as shifting former NeverTrumpers over to his side. (On the other hand, the Clinton campaign supported violent anti-Trump demonstrations during the primaries, were intended to firm up his support. And they did).
If this keeps up, Trump can look forward to an easy re-election with (at the very least) Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota, Maine and New Mexico moving into his column in 2020. And then it's Pence in 2024. As David Burge recently tweeted,

Those who forget the lessons of histrionics are doomed to repeat them.

Matt Walsh --

Dear Liberals, don't lecture us about Trump when you nominated #GalCapone 

Stephen Miller --

"Gosh I'd love to fly to NYC & see a $850 a ticket musical but I have an Obamacare penalty to pay" - Every union voter in Wisconsin

Erick Erickson --

Don't be too hard on the Hamilton cast. Smug lectures while Pence undoes Obama's legacy is all they have left.

John Schindler --

I can't believe POTUS will be an inexperienced, media-created fraud who's supremely self-confident but unqualified.

But enough about 2008.

Note - All the guys quoted above were strongly anti-Trump.

In his latest G-File, Jonah Goldberg celebrates the demise of the Clintons. Joyous schadenfreude. (I guess that's redundant, isn't it?)

http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/442319/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-house-clinton-finished

Haha. A rude comeuppance for a would-be Trump sign stealer. --

https://twitter.com/Daniel_Ohana/status/795436627665518592/video/1

Larry Elder -- Why we need vouchers --

Think Obama or the Clintons would ever do this? Mitt Romney waiting in line in a NY airport for a cab to take him to his meeting with Donald Trump.



For that matter, think Obama or the Clintons would forego their $400K annual presidential salary as Trump has said he will? Even when that sum is a mere pittance compared to the Crooked Couple's usual hourly rate?

CNN --

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

London Daily Mail --

Bill Clinton was once paid an astonishing $1.3 million for two days worth of speeches, an analysis of Clinton's finances published today shows.

Don't feel too bad for Hillary. She didn't go away completely empty-handed --

Our Frozen Future

Evidence that we're currently entering a little ice age, similar to the period 1250-1870...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#47bf21e269bb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYo9IvmD9mo&feature=youtu.be

http://principia-scientific.org/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

The fracking revolution, which cost taxpayers nothing, which provides high paying jobs and government revenue, which was commenced and was developed without government planning or support, and which has been fought by central planners seeking to subsidize the "green" industry, has stemmed the rapid rise of CO2 emissions.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/14/global-co2-emissions-stall-helped-by-shale/

What Goes Around

Kevin Williamson reflects on precedents set by Barack Obama coming back to haunt the left.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442155/donald-trump-executive-power-left-loves-constitutional-checks-balances-again

And here he is in a related discussion with Charles C.W. Cooke. Quite entertaining.

https://ricochet.com/podcast/post-election-angst-left-right/

Progressives won't read or listen to this but they should. They really should.

Also -- An excellent analysis (as always) from Andrew McCarthy on whether Hillary Clinton should be pardoned.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442139/trump-obama-hillary-pardon

Added 11/15 --

The most satisfying consequence of Donald Trump's election (so far) is the pain, angst and embarrassment it has generated among the smug and condescending left.

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/798243655379283969?s=09

Now I see why some people think John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are funny.

A Fine Bunch - Clinton, Comey, Weiner, Abedin and Obama

FBI Agent : It's a slam dunk case. She was grossly negligent. If she wasn't, there's no such thing. We have to recommend indictment.

Comey : (Thinks silently for a several moments, then asks,) What's a good synonym for "grossly"?

Agent : Hmmmm....How about, "extremely".

Comey : (face brightens) Good. That's good. Now, another word for negligent.

Agent : Ummmm...."careless"?

Comey : (smiles broadly) Yes! Excellent! That's it. She was "extremely careless". And I don't see that wording in any of the relevant statutes. We'll go with "extremely careless".


Within the confined space of a WSJ op-ed, former U.S. AG Michael Mukasey presents the case for Hillary Clinton's indictment on multiple misdemeanor and felony counts and then goes on to bash FBI head James Comey and current AG Loretta Lynch for their dereliction of duty in not bringing the former Secretary of State up on charges.

...In July (Comey) announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would seek to charge her with a crime although Mrs, Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server -- at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by foreign nations -- a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails -- a felony under two other statutes.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-directors-dishonorable-choice-1477863402

Retired CIA officer Charles S. Faddis has no patience for Clinton apologists. --

I have worked in national security my entire life. Most of that has been in the intelligence community surrounded by classified information. For twenty years, I worked undercover in the Central Intelligence Agency, recruiting sources, producing intelligence and running operations. I have a pretty concrete understanding of how classified information is handled and how government communications systems work.

Nobody uses a private email server for official business. Period. Full stop.

The entire notion is, to borrow a phrase from a Clinton campaign official, “insane.” That anyone would presume to be allowed to do so is mind-boggling. That government officials allowed Hillary Clinton to do so is nauseating.

(Faddis isn't quite correct here. Government officials, including Barack Obama, knew of the Clinton email arrangement and did nothing to stop it. Nobody actually "allowed" it. Saying it was approved was just one of Clinton's egregious lies).

Classified and unclassified information do not mix. They don’t travel in the same streams through the same pipes. They move in clearly well defined channels so that never the twain shall meet. Mixing them together is unheard of and a major criminal offense.

If you end up with classified information in an unclassified channel, you have done something very wrong and very serious.

Accidentally removing a single classified message from controlled spaces, without any evidence of intent or exposure to hostile forces, can get you fired and cost you your clearance. Repeated instances will land you in prison.

Every hostile intelligence agency on the planet targets senior American officials for collection. The Secretary of State tops the list. Almost anything the Secretary of State had to say about her official duties, her schedule, her mood, her plans for the weekend, would be prized information to adversaries.

It is very difficult, in fact, to think of much of anything that the Secretary of State could be saying in email that we would want hostile forces to know.

As we wait for more information on the latest revelations, let’s quickly note what we already know Hillary Clinton did.

While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private email address for official business. Instead of using a State Department account, she used a personal email account, housed on a private server located in her home in Chappaqua, New York. The Department of State exercised zero control or oversight in this process. No government security personnel were involved in protecting them.

When the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked to see these emails, the Department of State said they did not have them. Clinton’s lawyers then went through all the emails on her server. They turned over 30,000 emails they decided were work related and deleted all of the rest.

How they made the decision as to which emails to share and which to destroy remains unknown. Active government officials were not involved in this process.

Hillary says she did not use the account to transmit classified information. This has been proven false. The FBI found over 100 messages that contained information that was classified when sent, including numerous email chains at the level of Top Secret/Special Access Programs. They don’t get any more highly classified, it’s the virtual summit of Mt. Everest. One theme pertained to the movement of North Korean nuclear assets obtained via satellite imagery. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this is extremely sensitive information.

The FBI found another 2,000 messages containing information that should have been classified at the time it was sent. How much more classified information may have been in the tens of thousands of emails, which Clinton’s lawyers erased, is completely unknown.

(Not completely. The Russians and Chinese certainly know. Possibly the Iranians and North Koreans too. Oh, and the British and the Israelis know for sure. Fortunately, the latter two are our friends).

Hillary Clinton supporters like to ask rhetorically, “Well, what about Colin Powell?” Nice try, but using your own private email address which received 2 emails determined to be classified later, is nothing like deliberately operating a home brewed server, and then see it handle thousands of classified e-mails.

It’s like asking, "what about the guy who received a stolen apple?" while equating his actions to those of bank robbers who stole $10 million.

What happens next we do not know. What we do know already is this. While serving in one of the most senior positions in the United States Government, Hillary Clinton was at a minimum, grossly negligent in the handling of classified information and when confronted with this practice, acted immediately to destroy information and prevent a full, fair and complete investigation of any damage to national security.

Anyone else who did such things in the government would long ago have been tried, convicted and sent to jail.

You decide if you want to send her to the White House instead.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/303499-hillarys-emails-matter-a-retired-cia-officer

Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro and Mark Steyn are both having a grand old time analyzing the circumstances of the Clinton scandal's latest revelations.

Shapiro --

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10355/5-reasons-fbis-new-email-investigation-hilarious-ben-shapiro

Steyn --

This passage is priceless --

Thursday's Wikileaks brought forth the revelation that, at the highest levels in the Hillary campaign, senior officials had been wondering what precisely is the difference between credibly accused sexual predator Bill Cosby and credibly accused sexual predator Bill Clinton. My post on the topic prompted Professor Larry A Feig of Tufts University to write to me:

Cosby drugged women you asshole
Larry A Feig, PhD
Professor of Developmental, Molecular & Chemical Biology
Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences
Tufts University

I'm not a PhD, but I think there should be a comma between "drugged women" and "you asshole".

Two points to Professor Feig:

1) You should have sent your response to Hillary campaign official Ron Klain, senior foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan and campaign chair John Podesta, who were the ones trying to agree to a line on this particular topic.

2) Still, thanks for giving us the view from one of America's most prestigious safe spaces. If I understand Professor Feig correctly, the critical distinction is that it's totally unacceptable to sedate your victims so they wake up afterwards wondering what the hell happened, as opposed to ensuring they remain conscious for every violent, traumatic moment of the rape. "Zzzzzz" means "no", but "no" means "sure, go for it, just make sure I stay awake." You might want to put some ice on that theory, professor.*

http://www.steynonline.com/7577/occam-weiner

*I'm at risk of ruining the line by explaining it, but here Steyn is alluding to the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation against Bill Clinton. "Put some ice on that", he told her after chewing up her lip.

And lastly -- From Time magazine (!!) -- Unless this is a parody, and I don't think it is, the writer is irredeemably stupid. And insane. Between the lunatic left and the alt-right, it's clear why we get the candidates we do.

http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

What Can One Say But...Obama!

Salieri : Mozart, it was good of you to come!
Mozart : How could I not?
Salieri : How... Did my work please you?
Mozart : I never knew that music like that was possible!
Salieri : You flatter me.
Mozart : No, no! One hears such sounds, and what can one say but... Salieri!

Another happy Obamacare customer (At least the notice is honest. "...Open access POS")--

The repercussions of Obama's "smart" power --

                  Syria bombs school ; 35 dead, including 20 children

Across Russia, 40 million civilians and military personnel just finished up emergency drills aimed at preparing the general population for nuclear or chemical-weapons attacks --

         Soldiers dressed in hazchem gear carry victims of an attack away from the scene

Another Obama "legacy" -- The Iran capitulation --



















The Obama administration disclosed to Congress that it transferred a total of $1.7 billion in cash through Swiss banks to Iran around the time American hostages were released this year, about four times the amount originally disclosed to the public.

...Between January 2014 and July 2015, when the Obama administration was hammering out the final details of the nuclear accord, Iran was paid $700 million every month from funds that had previously been frozen by U.S. sanctions.
A total of $11.9 billion was ultimately paid to Iran, but the details surrounding these payments remain shrouded in mystery, according to Mark Dubowitz, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
In total, “Iran may have received as much as $33.6 billion in cash or in gold and other precious metals,” Dubowitz disclosed. 

Ah, money well spent...

...Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are believed to be behind a series of incidents this month that saw surface-to-surface missiles fired at the USS Mason on at least two occasions.

And Obama loses...the Philippines?!

Rodrigo Duterte, a self-proclaimed socialist with close links to communists, announced in Beijing the Philippines' 'separation' from the United States, throwing into doubt a 70-year alliance that is anchored on a mutual defense treaty

..."America has lost now. I've realigned myself in your ideological flow," he told business leaders in Beijing on Thursday. "And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It's the only way."

With Australia and Japan next ?! --

Australia has slipped into neutral gear in the South China Sea, saying it won’t participate in any joint naval exercises there. Japanese officials worry that U.S. weakness in dealing with China will mean Beijing’s plans for turning the East China Sea into a Chinese lake may be unstoppable.


But at least Obama is "saving the earth" -- 

Earlier this month, employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, acting in their official capacities, caused one of the largest waste spills in recent history.

For almost a week, a torrent of toxic sludge, the color of hot mustard and rife with poisonous metals — has been flowing through Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

(Not) For the birds -- "sustainable" energy

And next in line -- HRC and her gang.

Kevin Williamson --

James Comey, the contemptible bureaucrat who apparently is running the show at the FBI these days, just informed Congress that the agency plans to reopen its investigation into the question of Mrs. Clinton’s covert e-mail system, the classified information that passed through it, the contents of e-mails that were improperly kept from investigators, and more. “The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation,” Comey wrote to Congress, which means that the FBI is finally catching up with the gentlemen in Moscow and Buzzfeed. Hurrah for the feebs.

The recent WikiLeaks release is hugely entertaining reading. Vexed by the Clinton circle’s lack of e-mail security, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills wrote to John Podesta — in an e-mail, for pete’s sake! — “We need to clean this up.” Clean what up? “He” — President Barack Obama — “has emails from her. They do not say state.gov.” You’ll recall that President Obama, whose dishonesty is at least as instinctive as Richard Nixon’s was, said that he knew nothing about Mrs. Clinton’s e-mail shenanigans until he learned about the situation on the evening news. “I first heard about it on the news” is his standard line on practically everything. If, God forbid, the man should one day come down with testicular cancer, he’ll learn about it from Dr. Sanjay Gupta at 7 p.m. on a slow-news Wednesday on CNN.

Remember that this mess started with the invasion of an e-mail account belonging to Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton sycophant. If you and your gang were in hot water because you could not keep your secret e-mails secret, what on earth would possess you to put a such a confession — a confession of what looks for all the world like conspiracy to obstruct justice – into an e-mail?

English is going to need a stronger word for stupidity.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441586/hillary-clinton-corruption-fbi-investigation-election-outcome

Go Blue!

Some good news for a change. Apparently, there's been a positive reaction to Kaepernick's deplorable stunt.

Liars Lie

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."
White House web page, 2009

Barack Obama repeated some variation of this 37 times while campaigning for the ACA. The left-leaning fact checker, Politifact called this the "Lie Of The Year", 2013.

On October 29, 2013, NBC News reported that 50 percent to 75 percent of the 14 million Americans with individual healthcare plans would receive a cancellation notice in the next year.


"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
Barack Obama, 2008

"Not only are premiums lower than they were, they're lower than the most optimistic predictions."
Barack Obama, 2013

"The average premium for a family in an employer-sponsored plan in 2008 was $12,680. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, for 2016, annual premiums for an average family are now beyond $17,500."
Jim Geraghty, 10/2016

"Premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama's health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer, the administration confirmed Monday.
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVARBefore taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services."

Associated Press report, 10/24/2016

KW with a primer on why Obamacare didn't work --

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441432/why-obamacare-doesnt-work

The Contemptible, Loathsome, Hateful, Detestable, Reprehensible, Abhorrent, Heinous Candidate

And Donald Trump is not any good either.

How Hillary Clinton treats the people sworn to protect her life with theirs. Deroy Murdock documents a few examples.

“I’m not voting for Clinton,” Air Force staff sergeant Eric Bonner posted on Facebook in July.

“It’s because she actually talked to me once. Almost a sentence,” wrote the Air Force K-9 handler. “I got to do a few details involving Distinguished Visitors.”

“One of my last details was for Hillary when she was Secretary of State,” Bonner continued. “I helped with sweeps of her DV quarters and staff vehicles. Her words to me?”

According to Bonner, Clinton told him, “Get that f***ing dog away from me.”

“Then she turns to her security detail and berates them up and down about why that animal was in her quarters,” Bonner added. “For the next 20 minutes, while I sit there waiting to be released, she lays into her detail, slamming the door in their faces when she’s done. The Detail lead walks over, apologizes, and releases me. I apologize to him for getting him in trouble. His words, ‘Happens every day, Brother.’”

“Hillary doesn’t care about anyone but Hillary.”

“Stay the f*** back, stay the f*** away from me!” the then-–First Lady screamed at her Secret Service agents. “Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f***ing do as I say, okay!!?” Clinton demanded, according to former FBI agent Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, page 139.

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f***ing ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary yelled at a Secret Service agent, as Joyce Milton reported in The First Partner, page 259. The officer explained in vain that he preferred to keep his hands free, in case a threat arose.

“Good morning, ma’am,” a uniformed Secret Service officer once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F*** off!” she replied, as Ronald Kessler documented in First Family Detail, page 16.

“Put this back on the ground!” Hillary Clinton screamed at the pilot of presidential helicopter Marine One. “I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need my sunglasses! We need to go back!” Clinton so abused the chopper’s crew that they christened it Broomstick One.

Also in Dereliction of Duty, its author — Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (Ret.), who carried the “nuclear football” — recalled hearing “volleys of expletives” erupting from Hillary’s mouth. He also lamented “the Nazi-like edge that emerged when she was around.”

“Where is the goddam f***ing flag? I want the goddam f***ing flag up every f***ing morning at f***ing sunrise,” Hillary snapped at state trooper Larry Patterson at the Arkansas governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991, according to Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, page 246.

“Good morning,” an Arkansas state trooper said to Clinton, according to American Evita, by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor with Time magazine.

"F*** off!” Hillary told him and his fellow bodyguards. “It’s enough I have to see you s***-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your goddam job and keep your mouth shut.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441367/hillary-clinton-security-detail-curses-foul-mouth

The Continuing Outrage

Since this cannot be repeated often enough...

Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies during her tenure as Secretary of State and escaped prosecution only because the current president is as corrupt as she is.

Andrew McCarthy with yet another devastating critique of our next president, comparing her treatment with that of the recently prosecuted General James E. Cartwright.

Here's an extensive excerpt, but the entire piece should be read.

...Compared with Clinton, Cartwright is a piker. As the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin reports, Cartwright appears to have been a “confirming” source. That is, reporters from the New York Times and of Newsweek already had the Stuxnet intelligence (from some other leaker whom the administration has not prosecuted). Cartwright merely acknowledged the information’s accuracy — and, he says, only after it had appeared in published news reports. His claimed purpose was to prevent additional intelligence from being published to the detriment of our national security. This does not excuse his conduct, but it may go a long way toward explaining why the Justice Department charged only a felony false-statement count, not a classified-information offense.

Clinton, by contrast, willfully set up a homebrew e-mail system. Given that the secretary of state’s duties preponderantly involve intelligence matters, this made it inevitable that classified information would unlawfully be transmitted and stored on non-secure servers (i.e., outside the multi-layered protection of the government’s classified communications system). Thus did the FBI find, for example, that of the 110 e-mails on Clinton’s non-secure system that were — contrary to her claims — classified at the time she sent or received them, eight involved top-secret information.

What does “top secret” mean? Under the executive order signed in 1995 by Mrs. Clinton’s husband, President Bill Clinton, it is information the mishandling of which “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” With such an enormous level of threat, extraordinary restrictions on access are imposed to limit the possibility of exposure. That’s why the government generally comes down like a ton of bricks on offenders, or at least offenders not named Clinton.

Even these extraordinary measures, however, are deemed insufficient when the information is designated as “SAP” (“special access program”) — as seven of Mrs. Clinton’s were. Because mishandling top-secret SAP programs could expose either intelligence-gathering efforts that are critical to protecting American lives or intelligence sources who gravely imperil themselves in order to acquire life-saving intelligence for the United States, access to such information is on an even more extremely limited “need to know” basis. Yet, Clinton made them vulnerable to everyone.

Fully 36 of Clinton’s e-mails fell into the “secret”-information category. That designation applies when information “could be expected to cause serious damage to national security” if transmitted or stored in an unauthorized manner. “Serious” is not as weighty as “exceptionally grave,” but it is, well, serious. That’s why people usually get prosecuted for compromising it. Unlike Cartwright, Clinton did not just communicate with a couple of reporters who already knew the information in question. She made previously concealed intelligence massively vulnerable to capture by foreign intelligence agencies and hackers.

...That brings us back to “(C),” the designation that applied to at least seven of Clinton’s e-mails at the time she sent or received them, and that now covers thousands more because government intelligence agencies adjudged them too sensitive to disclose publicly. Again, “(C)” does not really stand for “Cartwright” or indicate alphabetical ordering. It is, instead, the designation for “confidential” information that, if mishandled, could “cause damage to the national security.” This means its mishandling is a significant offense, even if the damage is not likely to be “exceptionally grave” or “serious.” That’s why its compromise often results in prosecution, or at least severe sanctions such as termination of employment or loss of security clearance.

In light of General Cartwright’s prosecution for lying about his mishandling of classified information, it is worth revisiting Mrs. Clinton’s representation to the FBI that she did not know what “(C)” meant.

For four years, Clinton was secretary of state, a job in which classified information is stock-in-trade. On starting her tenure, Clinton signed a document acknowledging that she had “received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” In the last paragraph, right over her signature, Clinton acknowledges that she has been provided with the aforementioned executive order signed by her husband in 1995 — the one that explains, in painstaking detail, what classified information at the confidential level is.

Naturally, when later asked about it by the FBI, Clinton denied any recollection of this security indoctrination. Yet in her memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton vividly recounts receiving thorough training to guard against the omnipresent danger of espionage. Indeed, she recalled that, when she traveled, she and her staff would leave “BlackBerrys, laptops — anything that communicated with the outside world — on the plane, with their batteries removed to prevent foreign services from compromising them.” Further, based on the training she’d gotten, she took to reading intelligence information

"inside an opaque tent in a hotel room. In less well-equipped settings we were told to improvise by reading sensitive material with a blanket over our head."

These mountains of documents she scrutinized involved such matters as the Snowden leaks, the NSA program, the Libyan civil war, Mubarak’s fall and the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise, the Saudi role in 9/11, the Iraqi nuclear and missile programs, the Benghazi siege, the arming of “rebels” in Libya and Syria, the deterioration of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and on, and on. And that’s not the half of it. Before heading the State Department, she spent eight years in the U.S. Senate, most of that time as a member of the Armed Services Committee. It was wartime, and the major national controversies centered on classified information. She therefore had to pore over intelligence that, for example, supported the Iraq invasion, was derived from interrogations, measured the success of the “surge,” and so forth.

If there is one thing Clinton has emphasized in her presidential campaign, it is her “readiness.” Whether she was on Capitol Hill or at Foggy Bottom, she wants you to know, she was never the phone-it-in type. She did all her homework, and then some.

If there is one thing Clinton has emphasized in her presidential campaign, it is her ‘readiness.’ Well, in those classified documents she studied lo those dozen years, the “(C)” designation is ubiquitous. It often appears numerous times in a single document — even on a single page. Yet, despite spending a decade-plus as a daily, top-level consumer of classified information, Clinton looked a room full of FBI agents and federal prosecutors in the eye and told them she didn’t know what the “(C)” designation meant.

Mrs. Clinton has told many preposterous lies, but that has to be the most outrageous of the lot.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441358/hillary-clinton-secretar-state-emails-classified-information-fbi-justice-department

Principled Conservatism

Jonah Goldberg at his best...

Facing a skeptical, if not quite hostile, crowd at Hillsdale College (no less), Jonah forcefully defends his Never Trump position with passion, clarity and humor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNbXqQ1IeIs

A more relaxed Goldberg discusses What Is Conservatism? as part of a panel. Listening to this, (and the Hillsdale video), I realize that he is the person closest to being my philosophical guru.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL7ilna67Ws&spfreload=5

The Obama-Clinton Criminal Conspiracy

Andrew McCarthy reviews the appalling failure of the FBI and the Obama DOJ to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her felonious activity as Secretary of State. This is a summation of McCarthy's numerous writings on the subject. Consult those for more detailed discussions.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2016-10-24-0100/hillary-clinton-fbi-obama-administration

From NR Editors -- The latest revelations from the Obama-Clinton email scandal.

The Clinton e-mail scandal is also the Obama e-mail scandal. Because the president’s e-mails would be admissible as evidence in the event of a Clinton prosecution; because it would then become clear that the president himself had sent classified information over a non-secure e-mail server, the communications of high-level executive officials with the president being presumptively classified; and because the president could not formally invoke executive privilege without tacitly admitting Clinton’s guilt — the president could not let any prosecution go forward. Huma Abedin’s requesting a copy of a Clinton–Obama e-mail exchange from investigators suggests she was canny enough to grasp the point at once.

It will be years before the details of this tangled saga are fully known; they may never be. But we know enough to predict that a Clinton administration would be like an Obama administration: rotten from the top down.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441187/wikileaks-podesta-emails-obama-administration-clinton-email-scandal

Jonah Goldberg --

In a normal election year with a normal GOP nominee, the WikiLeaks revelations might prove fatal to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead, it seems almost a sure thing that they will poison Clinton’s presidency for years to come. The allegations of pay-for-play between her foundation and the State Department, her speeches to Wall Street, the animosity of some of her closest advisers for Catholics: All of these things will have a long half-life. As will her manifest lies about the use of her private server.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441184/wikileaks-emails-hillary-clinton-revelations-presidency

The big takeaway from the final Trump-Clinton debate is that Trump continued to refuse to say that he would concede defeat if the voting didn't go his way. "I'll keep you in suspense", he said. This is, of course, an egregious affront to the legitimacy of the electoral system, and a not so subtle call to violence by supporters so inclined. But aside from that, there is probably a significant cohort of undecided voters who are intrigued by Trump's threat to "keep them in suspense" and would vote against him just to see if he'd follow through.
What a moron.

The aforementioned Andy McCarthy is one person who thinks that the outrage over Trump's ambiguity about accepting the election results is being blown way out of proportion --

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441272/accepting-election-result-much-ado-about-nothing


Jim Geraghty --

Trump wasn’t fueled to the top of the GOP presidential primary by his ideas and agenda. He was fueled by his decades of status as a celebrity and reality-show host, a long history of appearances on Fox News, enthusiastic support from figures like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Matt Drudge, and the decision of the cable-news networks to cover a lot of his campaign events live, something they never did for any of his rivals. (He was also helped by the fact that the GOP primary electorate never faced a binary choice between Trump and one of his rivals, because John Kasich really, really, really needed to demonstrate that he could be elected president of Ohio.)

James Kirchick (Daily Beast) lists who he considers the top 25 collaborators enabling Donald Trump's rise to the GOP nomination. Kirchick includes some groups (e.g. - the 14 million Trump primary voters) and institutions (e.g. - the RNC) on his list. Two blameworthy candidates not mentioned are Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/19/the-unforgivables-trump-s-top-collaborators.html

Mona Charen is listing on Twitter some of the good guys - conservative writers and politicians who fought against a Trump nomination from the beginning and who've held firm throughout the campaign. Here is my compilation. I'm sure I'm leaving out many deserving others.

Writers and Commentators -- Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, Stephen Hayes, David French, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Jay Nordlinger, Mona Charen, Jim Geraghty, Leon Wolf, Charles C. W. Cooke, Caleb Howe, Erick Erickson, Stephen Miller, Dan McGlaughlin, John Podhoretz, Ian Tuttle, Rich Lowry, Bret Stephens, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Noah Rothman, John Ziegler, S.E. Cupp, Glenn Beck, James Kirchick, Matt Walsh, Charlie Sykes, Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, Jay Cost, Ross Douthat, Richard Epstein, and the King of Twitter, David Burge.

Politicians -- Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham, The Bushes - George H. W., George W., and Jeb, Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake, Mike Lee, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins, Larry Hogan, Carly Fiorina. There are others who have wavered somewhat but remain mostly opposed. A fuller list (as of June) is linked here --

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6472/heres-your-full-list-republican-politicians-who-aaron-bandler

John Kasich is a special case. Though he has consistently and resolutely refused to endorse Trump, his failing to exit the primary race long after it was clear he had no chance, did much to help Trump secure the nomination by splitting the anti-Trump vote.

One prominent conservative writer who backs Trump over Hillary is Mark Steyn. As usual, he presents a strong case --

http://www.steynonline.com/7564/laws-are-for-the-little-people

And another (who Steyn quotes in his article) is Victor Davis Hanson --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441126/donald-trump-conservatives-should-vote-president

It is understandable that quality thinkers like Steyn and Hanson would support Trump when one considers the horrendous alternative. I understand, I just don't quite agree, that there would be an appreciable difference in negative consequences by electing either Trump or Clinton. They're both awful in different ways. However, saying that Trump is the lesser of two evils is far different than saying that he was a superior, or the superior candidate in the GOP field. The short, understated response to that argument is, No.

The Anti-Defamation League has identified the most frequent targets of anti-Semitic tweets this year and leading the pack by far is the estimable Ben Shapiro with 38% (!!) of the total, about four times his nearest competitor. Shapiro is justly proud of his achievement, knowing that he's annoying the right people.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10064/6-thoughts-being-1-journalistic-target-jew-hatred-ben-shapiro

In another article, Shapiro predicts that whoever is the GOP's next presidential candidate will be stigmatized as "worse than Trump". This is undoubtedly true.

He is the worst major-party candidate in history.

He’s a gaffe machine. He’s an evil racist who wants to return black people to slavery. He’s a brutal sexist who wants to return women to the subservience of the 1950s.

He’s a nasty warmonger who doesn’t get the fundamental intricacies of modern foreign policy, with the Manichean worldview to match. He’s an old homophobe with a history of cruelty to workers.

Think we’re talking about Donald Trump?

No, we’re talking about Mitt Romney circa 2012. That’s how the media painted one of the most honorable men ever to run for the White House, the creator of Romneycare, a northeastern Republican with a penchant for compromise and negotiation. Mitt Romney, the left claimed, was no John McCain — that halcyon of moderation and decency.

Now, of course, the media tells us that Donald Trump is a massive departure from the legacy of John McCain and Mitt Romney. He’s beyond the pale! He panders to racists! He’s a vicious sexist and sexual assaulter! He’s uninformed, unstable, ignorant, stupid! Why, compared to Mitt Romney, the man’s a monster!

Much of this may be true in a way it simply wasn’t about Romney. But by 2020, Donald Trump will be the new standard of civility and decency according to the Left. If Republicans nominate a real conservative, Democrats in the media and politics will immediately label that candidate far more extreme than Trump. They’ll pine for the wonderful days when a career Democrat such as Trump could win the Republican nomination — a man who said he liked Planned Parenthood, wanted to expand entitlement programs, backed government-sponsored maternity leave, wanted to close tax loopholes, didn’t care if men used ladies rooms! That Trump — boy, was he a moderate. But this New Guy — what a terror! What a horror!

...Such cries will be replayed and amplified in 2020 no matter who Republicans nominate, because presumably Republicans won’t repeat the mistake of nominating a Democrat. Democrats in the media would prefer two Democrats battling it out for the White House. This is their favorite election ever: not only do they get a Democrat running against a Democrat posing as a Republican, they get to castigate the Democrat posing as a Republican as a racist and sexist, then smear other Republicans with him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441232/donald-trump-media-least-favorite-republican-until-2020

And last, but far from least...Kevin Williamson penned a letter to the future President Clinton with recommendations regarding the 2nd Amendment. Kevin routinely writes brilliantly. This piece surpasses that high standard.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441229/hillary-clinton-gun-control-advice-prosecute-straw-buyers

Testing A Vow

Lost amidst the continuing Trump trainwreck are the truly devastating revelations forthcoming almost daily from the WikiLeaks release of Hillary Clinton's and her cronies' e-mails. Andrew McCarthy's latest in his series of detailed analyses of these damning documents shows that Barack Obama's involvement in the scandal precluded any serious attempt make a criminal case against the former Secretary of State.

Among the most noteworthy of the hacked e-mails from John Podesta’s accounts is an exchange in which Podesta consults Clinton consigliere Cheryl Mills about the private e-mail exchanges between President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As readers may recall, I have long maintained that the principal reason why Mrs. Clinton was not prosecuted, despite a mountain of evidence that she committed felony mishandling of classified information, is the fact that Obama engaged in the same kind of misconduct. The president’s use of a private, non-secure channel to discuss sensitive matters with high level officials may not have been systematic, as Mrs. Clinton’s was. (Obama’s disturbing use of an alias, however, suggests that Clinton was not the only one he was privately e-mailing.) Nevertheless, the fact that the president was e-mailing Clinton means he not only participated in her misconduct but also that the Obama-Clinton e-mails would have been admissible evidence in any criminal trial of Clinton.

For the parties to prove such culpable conduct on the president’s part in a high-profile criminal trial would have been profoundly embarrassing to him, to say the least. Therefore, it was never going to happen. As I’ve noted before, after exclaiming, “How is that not classified?” upon being shown an Obama-Clinton e-mail by the FBI, Hillary’s confidant Huma Abedin asked agents if she could have a copy of the exchange. She obviously realized that if Obama had been communicating on Clinton’s non-secure server system, no one else who had done so was going to be prosecuted for it.

...Try this for a theory: Since President Obama had used an alias to discuss sensitive matters on Clinton’s private, non-secure e-mail system, had then falsely denied knowledge of that system, and had decided to conceal his e-mails with Clinton from the public, the Justice Department knew that no one was ever going to be prosecuted anyway. The Justice Department and the FBI could rationalize cutting otherwise inexplicable deals that they would never cut in a case they were actually trying to make because they knew there was not going to be a case — not against Mills, not against Clinton, not against anyone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441115/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-wikileaks-john-podesta-concern

Also -- How about this from John Podesta, writing, in private of course, about the Iran nuclear deal...

"This agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf… This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler."

This is a remarkable statement coming from one of Obama's most trusted advisors. "...nuclear war in the Persian Gulf."!!!! And publicly, Obama is still claiming the agreement is a great success.

Another remarkable revelation from the FBI Clinton investigation --

A top State Department official offered a bribe — a “quid pro quo” — to an FBI official in an attempt to declassify certain emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server that were previously deemed classified, according to FBI documents released Monday.

The documents allege Patrick Kennedy proposed the deal in exchange for the FBI being allowed to operate in countries where they’re currently banned.

David Burge tweets --

"The most amazing thing about this: one executive branch department offering bribes to another executive branch department."

The Obama-Hillary (Bill-Chelsea-Mills-Abedin-Podesta-Holder-Lynch-Comey-Kennedy-Lerner-Koskinen-Gruber, etc, etc, etc) Regime is rotten to the core, making it damn hard to remain NeverTrump.

And how about this whopper from HRC...

"I am not going to add a penny to the national debt"

I'm currently taking bets. Anyone? I'll give you 10-1 odds. Make it 20-1. 50-1?

And finally -- The battle to retake Mosul in Iraq from ISIS has reportedly begun. This is the same Mosul that GW Bush had won nearly a decade ago and Obama gave back in return for being able to falsely claim, during his re-election campaign, that he ended the war in Iraq.

Oh, one more thing -- Jonah Goldberg with the Quote of the Week --

I honestly can’t get my head around the fact that Hillary Clinton’s closing “argument” in this election is sexual harassment. Bill Clinton’s lifelong enabler has managed to turn this topic into a deadly weapon against a Republican nominee. This is like Godzilla turning public safety into a winning issue in the Tokyo mayoral race.

She SHOULD Be In Jail

Far from "criminalizing politics", Donald Trump's call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's disregard of federal law was the highlight of his campaign (admittedly a low bar to clear). It is the politicized Obama justice department that deserves the Banana Republic label.

Andrew McCarthy (who else?) sets the record straight. --

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440917/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton-debate?target=author&tid=900151

And Jim Geraghty (NRO) reports that the vast majority of FBI career agents investigating the Clinton email case concluded that she should be prosecuted.

Assuming that this is true, the country would be well-served if these figures came forward and said this publicly. If that act causes these career prosecutors and agents to be fired, then those of us who want the truth need to find a way to support them and give them other career options. If, as these career agents and attorneys on the case are alleging, the FBI is no longer capable of investigating allegations of crimes committed by high-ranking elected officials, the public needs to know and the crisis in the rule of law needs to be solved.

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Isn’t this precisely the sort of situation that whistleblower protection laws are created to address?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441037/it-safe-say-vast-majority-felt-she-should-be-prosecuted

The real tragedy of this election is that Republicans were this close to achieving a once-in-a-lifetime governance monopoly - House, Senate, President, Supreme Court and large majorities in state governorships and legislatures. All lost because one ignorant, dimwitted, racist, sexist, narcissistic, childish Democrat convinced a bunch of uninformed fools, fellow racists, ranting pundits and washed-up politicians to buy into his celebrity and con man act.

Now we're consigned to four or eight more years of the world that Obama-Clinton-Kerry made, with headlines like these (and worse to come) --

"Fiscal crisis warning as deficits rise, debt set to hit $20T next year"

"Fail: Expert Says Obamacare Might Be on the Brink of Total Collapse"

"U.S. Seen on Wrong Track by Nearly Three-Quarters of Voters"

"Islamic State Expands as Libya Descends into Chaos"

"Russia deploys nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad"

"Iran deploys warships off Yemen after US, Houthis trade fire"

"Chinese newspaper threatens 'military confrontation' with US in South China Sea"

"Report on Syria conflict finds 11.5% of population killed or injured

Syrian Centre for Policy Research says 470,000 deaths is twice UN’s figure with ‘human development ruined’ after 45% of population is displaced"

And with scenes like this --

Don't worry, BO's got it covered

And his successor is waiting in the wings

...ready and anxious to implement destructive policies, such as the recently concluded (and not ratified by Congress) Paris Climate Agreement.

Bjorn Lomborg --

At a cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, the agreement, recently ratified by China, is likely to be history's most expensive treaty. It will slow the world's economic growth to force a shift to inefficient green energy sources.

This will achieve almost nothing.

...Even if every nation were to fulfill all their carbon-cutting promises by 2030 and stick to them all the way through the century -- at a cost of more than $100 trillion in GDP -- global temperature rise will be reduced by a tiny 0.3°F.

An exemplary "progressive" project -- Spend lots of money benefitting the left's sponsors (in this case the "green" industry), producing no positive results, while doing great damage to free markets - the engine of human advancement.


Added 10/15 -- Andrew McCarthy reiterates his support for prosecuting Clinton and chastises Charles Krauthammer for siding with the "Trump is criminalizing politics" crowd. McCarthy states the case even better here than he did in his original article.

Mrs. Clinton appears to have committed serious crimes that undermined both national security and recordkeeping rules designed to promote accountability in government. If you want to talk about a truly profound threat to democratic norms, that’s the place to start. Obviously, these offenses are not just relevant but essential to the political case that should be made against Clinton, and would be by any opponent, not just by the unconventional, undisciplined Trump. Also pertinent is the fact that government officials who engage in Clinton’s type of misconduct do go to jail — to refrain from stating this would be to diminish the gravity of the crimes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441105/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-jail-prosecutor-debate-fbi-emails

Krauthammer's article -- http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441054/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy