Democrats must realize they cannot beat Trump based on his achievements, but can only denigrate his presidency, so another political inquisition has been held. Leading candidates for the Democrats include the mentally slow and possibly corrupt Joe Biden and two socialists fighting about who can steal the most money from those who earned it.

Bidens staff has limited his non-scripted public appearances due to gaffes. Bidens sons companies received over $300 million from a corrupt Ukrainian energy company and a $1.5 billion loan from the Chinese for what?

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens economic policies will transform American competitive values into a socialist system that has failed or is failing in every instance it has been tried. Irony would be that any working American would support giving more of their money and power to our inefficient government while the people of Hong Kong, who are now living the perils of social communism, are fighting for capitalism and against increased government interference in their lives.

What have the Democrats done recently to improve your life? Democratic strategy is to push us apart by promoting divisiveness based on whatever issue they can stir up race, sex, environment, religion, political correctness, money, etc. Now it is a sin to be financially successful. Current Democratic candidates offer no solutions for improving Americas productivity and standing in our competitive world. Instead, they promote giveaways to buy votes using the money earned by hard-working Americans. You may dislike Trumps bluntness; but he is effectively implementing.

John Harley

Aiken

View original post here:

Letter: Dems cannot beat Trump on issues | Opinions and Editorials - Aiken Standard

|

Posted: Dec 26, 2019 11:31 AM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

I consider Donald Trump one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known. He exudes love of America, boldly pursues excellence, and governs based on incisive common sense rather than nauseating political correctness.

That said:

1) Why are Roger Stone and Paul Manafort still languishing in legal purgatory? These men were pursued by the Justice Department Trump'sJustice Department for one reason only: They helped Trump become president. Yet, so far Trump has let them hang out to dry.

Democrat lobbyist Tony Podesta committed essentially the same crime for which Manafort was targeted. Yet, the Justice Department decided to grant Podesta immunity and go after Manafort. Why didn't it grant Manafort immunity and go after Podesta? You know the answer. Washington is a swamp.

Roger Stone, meanwhile, had his home raided in the middle of the night by the FBI for lying during a sham investigation. He cant even publicly speak about his case now because a totalitarian judge has so ordered. Amazingly, though, when asked on Tuesday whether he would pardon Stone, Trump replied, I hadn't thought of it.

He hadnt thought of it? Pray tell, why not? Stone is suffering because of his 40-year friendship with the president. If Trump is loyal to his friends as I and so many other Trump supporters like to believe he must pardon Stone and Manafort immediately.

2) Why has such little progress been made on the border wall three years into Trump's presidency? Of course, Trump alone is not to blame for the barely-existent wall. Congress has been stonewalling him every step of the way. But Trump has several cards to play. First, he can arguably forge ahead without congressional help considering that defending the country from invasion is a presidential duty.

Second, Trump can veto any major funding bill that doesnt give him sufficient funds for the wall. It's hard to imagine him not winning the ensuing standoff. How would House Democrats defend their refusal to fund the wall? By claiming that a million illegal immigrants annually is good for America? Thats not exactly a winning argument with most voters.

3) Why are we still in Afghanistan? American troops have been stationed and dying there for 18 years. Why?

4) Why did Trump sign the $1.4 trillion spending bill last week? In March 2018, a frustrated Trump promised never to sign another rushed spending bill with so much waste. The only reason he was willing to sign one then, he said, is because the military desperately needed to be rebuilt.

Does the military really need all the money it asks for? I doubt it. But let's leave that question aside. Trump signed the bill; the military got $700 billion. The year before that, it also received $700 billion. And now it just received an additional $700 billion.

In total, the military has received over $2 trillion under Trump to rebuild what was already the most powerful fighting force in the world. If that figure is somehow not high enough, what is the target number? How many more outrageous spending bills will Trump sign before the military is considered rebuilt? At the very least, Trump owes us that information.

I'll end how I started: I love Trump. I worked to get him elected in 2016 and constantly bless God that he's our president. He's a breath of fresh air and an inspiration to me personally. He has also fulfilled most of the promises he made to his supporters. But he has disappointed in a few areas, and Trump fans shouldnt be satisfied until he gives us, not merely a good presidency, but as Trump might say the best presidency.

Original post:

The Gripes of a Trump Supporter - Townhall

MIDDLEFIELD, Ohio -- How does one make sense out of the political circus that continues to play out before our eyes? Is Donald Trump just a victim of a witch hunt motivated by opponents out to bring him down? Did Democrats piece together a flimsy collection of evidence that really doesnt add up to any impeachable offense? Or is President Trump finally facing the music of his own reckless leadership style? Has he consistently played footloose and fancy-free with the law of the land, carelessly pursuing an agenda that benefits himself?

What is the truth of the matter? Can anyone put forward an opinion that approaches fairness and neutrality, or are we all prisoners to our own presuppositions and slanted political outlook?

As a 67-year-old guy from middle-class America, I grew up rooting for John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey while voting for Jimmy Carter. Yet it is a mistake to tag me as a Democrat. I also voted for Ronald Reagan and the Bushes, both father and son. To be honest, in the last presidential election I voted for neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. I wrote in a name not on the ballot.

Roger Kruse at his home in the Geauga County village of Middlefield, Ohio

Presently, I am decidedly conservative but looking for candidates that show some degree of integrity, wisdom, and ability to lead effectively. In these days of political divisiveness, we need leaders who can unite us and guide us toward cooperation and consensus. There will always be differences. That will never change. However, diversity of outlook can produce strength, balance, and a sort of hybrid of political policy and action. We just need a leader who will show us the way!

Most certainly, Donald Trump has inflicted trouble upon himself. A man reaps what he sows. The president has consistently displayed arrogance and a mean-spiritedness. He laments fake news but cranks it out himself every day.

He does deserve some credit for an economy humming along in robust health with low unemployment numbers. He also stands up to unfair trade practices and makes judicial appointments defined by a constitutional stance. I even like the fact that he eschews political correctness, defying media pressure to conform to their ideology. However, an effective leader must inspire, unite, and show by example how Americans can work together. Our president has consistently belittled and insulted opponents and treats his own Cabinet members with surprising disrespect!

It is unlikely that our president will change his stripes. It is also improbable that the U.S. Senate will convict and remove him from office. For those looking for change, the ballot box is still the best way for each citizen to determine who will lead us every four years. His impeachment could, in fact, backfire on Democrats. On the other hand, a good many Americans are weary of Mr. Trumps incessant tweets and his braggadocio style of self-promotion. The truth is, none of us knows just how the election will play out. We can only hope and pray that the American people will make the best choice!

Roger Kruse is a proud American convinced that our democracy is a precious gift that invites our participation as well as protection. After growing up in Solon, he met wife Glenda in India in 1980, and they have raised five children on four rural acres in Geauga County.

****************************

Have something to say about this topic? Use the comments to share your thoughts. Then, stay informed when readers reply to your comments by using the Follow option at the top of the comments, and look for updates via the small blue bell in the lower right as you look at more stories on cleveland.com.

See the original post here:

Reflections from the Ohio middle on an impeached president: Roger Kruse - cleveland.com

the results might be surprising given the chokehold political correctness has on college campuses today

This is a bit of good news for the holiday. Merry Christmas!

The College Fix reports:

POLL: 88% of college students say its NOT offensive to wish Merry Christmas to a stranger

It appears the political correctness grinch hasnt entirely stolen away the Christmas joy on campuses.

The vast majority of students recently surveyed said it is not offensive to wish Merry Christmas to a stranger, according to a College Fix poll.

The online poll asked roughly 1,000 college students: Is it offensive to wish Merry Christmas to a stranger? Eighty-eight percent responded it is not. Another 8 percent said they were not sure. And finally 4 percent said yes, it is offensive.

While the results might be surprising given the chokehold political correctness has on college campuses today, they ring similar to a national poll taken in 2016 of 1,224 registered voters that found only 3 percent of respondents were personally offended by Merry Christmas.

The student poll was conducted last week exclusively for The College Fix by College Pulse, an online survey and analytics company focused on college students.

The Fix poll questioned roughly 1,000 students 294 Democrat students, 531 independents and 171 college Republicans. Eight percent of Democrat students said its offensive to wish someone a Merry Christmas, 3 percent of independent students said it was, and only 1 percent of Republican students found it offensive.

Visit link:

Poll Finds 88% of College Students Say its not Offensive to Wish Strangers a Merry Christmas - legal Insurrection

NASHVILLE The University of Tennessee system's implementation of its own "last-dollar" college tuition scholarship program has come under challenge from state auditors who question interim UT system President Randy Boyd's authority to implement it without getting the UT Board of Trustees' specific approval.

Comptroller Justin Wilson's office says in the finding that trustees "neither officially approved the UT Promise program nor ensured management assessed the program's long-term impact."

"We said UT should have gotten board approval before announcing Tennessee Promise," Wilson told state House and Senate Government Operations Committee members earlier this month. "They disagreed. We don't read the language the same way they do."

Indeed, UT does contest the finding in the audit, one of two done since the 2018 passage of then-Gov. Bill Haslam's UT Focus Act. The act, which restructured the UT system's board of trustees, was spurred by Republican lawmakers' penchant for ranting at UT. That was often directed at the Knoxville campus, which GOP lawmakers routinely attacked as a bastion of political correctness over issues like gender-neutral pronouns and promiscuity with regard to UT Knoxville's annual "Sex Week."

In its official audit response, UT disagreed with Wilson's finding. It said Boyd's UT Promise, which is modeled after the earlier Tennessee Promise program, which offers similar tuition aid and mentorships for students attending community and technical colleges, didn't require trustees' formal approval for a simple reason.

"UT Promise is not a policy; it is a mentorship program like many other scholarship programs offered by the University," UT said in its response. "Likewise, UT Promise is not a 'waiver or discount of students fees'" as characterized in the audit, UT said.

The university system also made the case in its formal response that when UT trustees approved the overall budget, they were in effect approving everything in it, including the new initiative.

Boyd defends action, mildly

In his own appearance before the joint committee, Boyd made the same argument about initiating the UT Promise but used a more conciliatory approach. And the interim president noted he did speak with new trustees individually in private before announcing it publicly.

"I should probably just start with saying that I agree with the comptroller," Boyd told legislators. "When we have major initiatives, that's something we should consider to have conversations publicly about them. So your chief, key observation is something that we agree with."

Noting that UT, which has campuses in Knoxville, Chattanooga, Martin and Memphis, seriously takes its status as a land grant institution to provide "more opportunity for more Tennesseans," Boyd told lawmakers that if a student's family makes less than $50,000 and the student is academically qualified, they can enlist in the program and attend "free of tuition and fee.

"We'll also be providing them with a series of mentors," Boyd said, later adding, "we're going to require them to have skin in the game" by doing a day's worth of community service each semester.

UT Board Trustee Chairman John Compton, a 1983 UT Knoxville graduate and former PepsiCo CEO, told lawmakers "it's my personal opinion that the introduction of the UT Promise scholarship program further expands the university's commitment to affordability and access to all."

First tnAchieves, then Tennessee Promise, now UT Promise

Few people likely understand the ins and outs of combining last-dollar scholarships for students along with mentor guidance as well as Boyd, a Knoxville businessman.

After making a fortune in the pet product business think "Invisible Fence" Boyd spearheaded creation of tnAchieves, a private nonprofit Knoxville group working to get first generation students into college.

The idea is that with federal Pell Grants and similar aid already available, providing the additional "last dollar" scholarship money wasn't so huge a lift. Enlisting the help of volunteer mentors, the program helps prospective students apply for and succeed in school. The programs also require students to perform some type of community service.

The local program attracted the attention of a fellow Knoxvillian, Haslam, who wanted to boost the number of Tennesseans with community or technical college or university degrees. With Boyd coming to work for Haslam as an unpaid adviser, Haslam initiated Drive to 55, an effort to get 55% of adult Tennesseans with college degrees or certificates by 2025.

Along with that was a method to get part way there, the Tennessee Promise, which now provides last-dollar scholarships and the voluntary mentor program for students attending community or technical colleges. It relies on funding from a special Tennessee Education Lottery account.

The program has drawn national attention. Haslam later made Boyd his commissioner of community and economic development. Last year, Boyd ran for governor, losing the 2018 GOP primary to now-Gov. Bill Lee in a four-candidate field. Before leaving office, Haslam named Boyd interim UT president.

And now there's a UT Promise which Boyd told lawmakers could allow a student to attend any UT campus "free of tuition and fees. We'll also be providing them with a series of mentors [and]we're going to require them to have skin in the game" by doing a day's worth of community service each semester.

The UT Promise is going to be a "lot less expensive than sometimes people might think," Boyd said. While first-year estimates peg it at $5.7 million, Boyd said "that may sound like a lot, [but] in our overall budget, that's less than 5% of the total institutional aid that we provide students in the system. And it's only .37% of our entire budget."

Moreover, the university is creating a $100 million endowment to fund it, Boyd said. Having already raised more than $25 million in the past three to four months, he said, that's a quarter of the way to the endowment's goal. "Alumni are excited about this program, and they're willing to support students that apply for this program," he told lawmakers.

He added: "In spite of all those things I just shared, it is something that in the future that when we do have big public initiatives, whether we're required to vote on it or not, it may be something that we'll look at and [have] the conversations about in the general forum."

The audit also covered a number of other areas regarding the UT system.

Contact Andy Sher at asher@timesfreepress.com or 615-255-0550. Follow him on Twitter @AndySher1.

Original post:

State, University of Tennessee disagree on whether board of trustees' approval is needed for new UT Promise scholarship program - Chattanooga Times...

The BBC's fresh and gritty take on Charles Dickens A Christmas Carolhas captivated audiences for the past three nights, breathing new life into the famous story about Ebenezer Scrooge.

Those familiar with the tale will be aware that Scrooge is particularly mean to his employee Bob Cratchit which has a knock-on effect on his family. The Cratchit's are here again but in this new version, they have been reimagined as a mixed-race family with the role of Mary Cratchit being played by actor Vinette Robinson.

Unfortunately, as it seems to be with almost anything that is slightly progressive these days, there was a lot of negativity to this new portrayal of the family and, yes, it came from Twitter.

Now, we really don't need to go into the fact that the Cratchit'shave previously been played by a family of frogs and pigs in the past butRobinson had the perfect response to the accusations of 'political correctness.'

On Twitter, Robinson shared a thread from the very informative account 'Whores of Yore' which gave a very detailed breakdown of the many mixed-race couples that would have existed in the time of Dickens' novel and why the latest adaptation of the novel was factually accurate.

For those interested, here is the fascinating and educational thread in full.

Whores of Yore also responded to Robinson and shared a link to a book about mixed-race relationships in the 19th century which most people should probably read.

See the rest here:

A Christmas Carol star has perfect response to people who said that mixed-race couples didn't exist in the 19th century - indy100

Two events last week prove how worthless awards have become in recent years. Instead of recognizing actual accomplishments, they worship political correctness.

In one, Sports Illustrated honored USA Womens Soccer superstar Megan Rapinoe, by naming her its Sportsperson of the Year. But while accepting the award, she couldnt help biting the hand that honored her.

Is it truth that Im only the fourth woman deserving of this award? I dont think so, Rapinoe said.

Is it true so few writers of color deserve to be featured in this publication? No. Is it true so few womens voices deserve to be heard and deserve to be read in this publication? I dont think so.

As Sportsperson of the Year, Rapinoe joined the ranks of other luminaries, including NBA sensation Lebron James and tennis superstar Serena Williams.

But shes always lacked grace in victory. In late June when she was asked whether she would accept a White House visit, Rapinoe replied, "I'm not going to the f***ing White House," adding, "We're not gonna be invited. I doubt it."

After she was invited, she still refused to go.

Theres no question but that Rapinoe has talent, but there were far more talented athletes Sports Illustrated could have honored, like U.S. gymnast Simone Biles. She became the winningest female gymnast in world competition history this year.

Biles took home her fifth all-around world gymnastics title in Stuttgart, Germany, in October, despite being deducted points for performing routines that her competitors could not shes that good.

In another instance, last week Time magazine named climate activist Greta Thunberg its 2019 Person of the Year.

We cant just continue living as if there was no tomorrow, because there is a tomorrow, she told the publication. That is all we are saying.

Thunberg made waves in September by dressing down world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth, she said. How dare you.

The 16-year-old refuses to return to school until the rest of the world bows to her wishes.

No one doubts her sincerity, but shes long on talk and short on actual action "all show and no go" as the saying went back in the day.

If Time wanted to stick to an environmental theme, it might have named as its Person of the Year Irish teen Fionn Ferreira, who invented a method to clean microplastics from the worlds oceans.

Microplastics are plastic particles less than 5 millimeters in diameter.

Better yet, Time could have named the young people risking their lives each night by demonstrating for their own freedom in Hong Kong and Iran.

You can also throw Glamour into the mix. It named Caitlyn Jenner its Woman of the Year in 2015.

Its decision prompted the widower of 9/11 victim Moira Smith to return his wifes own 2001 posthumous Glamour Woman of the Year accolade to the magazine. He said he was shocked and saddened by Glamours decision, adding that the Jenner accolade was an insult to his wifes legacy.

Was there no woman in America, or the rest of the world, more deserving, asked James Smith, who referred to Jenner by the previous name Bruce.

As far as that goes, then-President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 the first year of his presidency. The committee didnt actually honor him for anything hed actually done, but rather for what they thought he might accomplish.

Before the end of Obamas second term, the Nobel Committees secretary, Geir Lundestad, regretted their decision.

"Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake," he told the BBC. "In that sense the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for"

This odd journey down the rabbit hole by rewarding popularity over accomplishment began decades ago, innocently enough and with good intentions. It was an attempt to make everyone feel important by giving every participant a trophy.

Its since morphed into basing our highest accolades on whatever is politically correct at the moment Rapinoes lesbianism, Thunbergs extreme climate views, Jenners transgenderism over excellence. Given that, why should anyone bother to excel?

Weve finally found ourselves in a world where bad is good, left is right and, to quote the Jefferson Airplane classic White Rabbit, where logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Link:

Awards Have Lost Their Luster Thanks to Political Correctness - Newsmax

This week, Lauretta Charlton reviews Darryl Pinckneys collection of essays Busted in New York. In 1992, Edmund White wrote for the Book Review about High Cotton, Pinckneys debut novel about a young black man coming of age.

When an African-American writer or a gay writer or a Native American writer publishes a novel, its always read as somehow representative of the whole minority group. Its also regarded as a testimony of the writers own coming to terms with that minority status. This kind of attention automatically focused on such books explains the power they generate and the constraints that are imposed upon them.

Whereas Ralph Ellisons hero was an invisible man to the whites around him, Mr. Pinckneys seems unreal even to himself. He has acquaintances rather than friends, observations rather than passions, few resentments, guarded enthusiasms and no sex life. No wonder hes drawn back again and again to the authenticity of the old-timers he meets in Harlem bars or at family funerals.

At a time in our history when a puerile political correctness imposes hypocrisy on most writers dealing with sensitive topics, Darryl Pinckney has dared to treat his theme with excruciating honesty and the total freedom from restraint that Schiller said we find nowhere else but in authentic works of art.

Link:

Considering Darryl Pinckney and Authenticity - The New York Times

In my high school, college and professional athletic career, I have played for the Lancers, Tigers, Matadors, Monarchs, Oilers, Cardinals, Redbirds, and the Magpies.

More and more we see mascot controversy in our country for a lot of politically correct reasons. One regional example surfaced last week and spurred debate in every bar and coffee house running along the Interstate 395 corridor. At issue? Whether the original Killingly High School Redmen nickname is racist and should be replaced with Red Hawks.

Actually, it wasreplaced by Red Hawks which was not a popular move. Officials, teachers, students, fans, Killingly residents, and school alumni are pointedly divided on the subject so much so that Killinglys football team played for a state championship last week without a nickname. No Red Hawks; no Redmen. Just the Killingly football team. Now thats bizarre.

Empowering local Boards of Education with the function of mascot life or death seems logical considering that members of these boards are elected to important decision-making responsibilities. In addition to establishing district policies, developing an annual budget for public approval, voting on the superintendent's recommendations on contracts, and the review of courses of study and textbooks, the BOE must now hold the full weight of public opinion and political correctness in deciding what mascot is appropriate.

Honestly, if enough people get together in a town and pressure the school for change, wouldnt the reasonable action be to come up with a new mascot? Mob must rule!

But before we cross over from the hypersensitive world of political correctness and jump straight off the cliff into insanity, can we all agree on mascot parameters moving forward? To wit:

Any mascot that refers to the color of someones skin should be forbidden. This would immediately eliminate Killingly Redmen and national franchises like the Washington Redskins.

Any reference to race or nationality should also be reason for disqualification. This terminates the Montville Indians and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

Any mascot that refers to a specific gender should be forbidden. This would erase, for a second reason,the Redmen from Killingly, but it also would call into doubt Woodstock's Academy's mascot, since a Centaur is a creature with the head, arms, and torso of a man and the body and legs of a horse. We must NOT be gender specific. Goodbye Syracuse Orangemen, unless they are willing to changeto the Syracuse Orange-persons.

Any nickname or mascot that attributes itself to religion should be banished as insulting to atheists and agnostics. This puts an end the St. Bernard Saints as well as the Providence Friars.

Any nickname derived from violence or the tools of death must be excluded. The Waterford Lancers, Ledyard Colonels and East Lyme Vikings are all nicknames bathed in blood and should be considered too menacing for mascot consideration.

Any mascot that may make anyone else remotely uncomfortable should be phased out. Personally, I am offended by the nickname "Whalers" since a whaler was a ship of death sailed upon by human whalers whose sole purpose was to catch and slaughter whales, processing the corpses into commodities. This must go!

The solution is straightforward. For the immediate future, mascots should only come from animals (preferably wild) and/or inanimate objects without human capacity for feelings or needs. Now, in the past, folks on social media have often accused me of overstating problems with no cogent conclusions. Well, since weve ascertained that the Eastern Connecticut Conference is littered with insensitive, racist mascots, here are a few replacements to consider:

Waterford Crystals; New London Magnets; Ledyard 214'ers (named after Route 214, which everyone cruises to get to Foxwoods); the Windham Frogs; the East Lyme Traffic Chaos Causers (sponsored in part by Costco); the St. Bernard Saint Bernards; the Putnam Noreasters; and the Killingly Rage (I actually like this last one).

The list of great mascot possibilities is wide open. Imagine an ECC Championship basketball game in a sold-out field house featuring the Montville Coffee Mugs vs. The Woodstock Academy Staplers.

Oh, and for clarity, allow me to reiterate: if a town or school finds their mascot racist, then change it. You have my full support. If you think a name like the Chicago Blackhawks or Washington Redskins or Killingly Redmen, for that matter is prejudiced, then try to replace that name and refuse to buy the teams products until change comes.

But just remember, we live in a world that has a hard time finding the middle of the road. If, or when, political correctness reigns supreme, the over-correction may make everything a mockery.

Lee Elci is the morning host for 94.9 News Now radio, a station that provides "Stimulating Talk" with a conservative bent.

Read the original post:

214'ers roll to victory over Frogs; it's mascot mayhem - theday.com

Former Governor of South Carolina and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley recently appeared on PBS Firing Line with Margaret Hoover.

During the interview, which last nearly half an hour, Hoover and Haley discussed multiple topics, including Haleys time at the U.N., and the way in which the United States should deal with Iran and North Korea.

In the latter half of the interview, Hoover asked Haley about her decision as Governor of South Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from the position it held in front of the statehouse.

HOOVER: While you were governor, a white supremacist killed nine South Carolinians in the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina. It was really how you navigated the aftermath of that event that caught the attention of the country because the issue of the Confederate flag had been one that had been debated for a long time in South Carolina, but nobody had been able to remove it entirely until you were governor, and you were able to successfully bring together people from all sides of that debate in order to reach a conclusion that everybody agreed upon.

Hoover remarked on how the debate came up again recently, prompting Haley to pen an op-ed for The Washington Post. Help maybe clarify and answer this question about how the killer hijacked the flag from people who saw it as service and sacrifice, Hoover said.

Haley replied:

Well, I think its interesting, and it shows the times that Ive literally said the same things for all the years since, but now in the outrage of media and the sensitivity of political correctness, suddenly everybody has a problem with what Im saying.

What I said was, the reason this was so hard was, we needed a 2/3 vote to bring the flag down. I saw an opportunity to make something right. The Confederate flag, Ive said from from the very beginning, never should have been there in the first place, but because it was there, I saw the opportunity that maybe we could have a conversation about bringing it down. But in order to bring a compromise, you have to be able to respect the views of your people.

Haley then noted that there were two different sets of people. There were those for whom the flag represented pain and racism and slavery, and those for whom it represented heritage and sacrifice and service.

If I had gone and condemned those people that saw it that way, that flag never would have come down, Haley stated. Instead, I had to acknowledge the thoughts of both and say, But now its time for our state to move forward. And through those actions, I called for the Confederate flag to come down, and it came down.

It was here that Haley offered an important lesson for todays United States:

If you go around vilifying people for their views, theyre not gonna listen to you, much less work with you. I needed to let them know, I understand that thats how you feel. Not how I feel, but I understood thats how they felt. And we had to find a way for them to feel like they were part of this decision for the betterment of South Carolina.

Hoover pushed back, saying that the Confederate flag re-emerged as a widespread symbol in the 1960s just as a certain segment of the southern population were trying to resist the federal government forcing racial equality upon them.

As a woman of color who grew up in the aftermath of that, how do you square that with the heritage-not-hate messaging? Hoover asked.

Haley responded, saying it was hard, and that symbol being brought back into the southern mainstream during a resistance to racial equality is why the Confederate flag never shouldve been there in the first place.

What it came down to for Haley was that the heritage not hate crowd could respect the flag, as well as their notion of what it means, in the confines of a museum so that those who were truly disturbed by the Confederate flag wouldnt have to experience pain when walking or driving by the statehouse.

If someone if a child looks up at that flag and feels pain, were doing something wrong at the end of the day, [that] was to make sure that the pain I felt growing up as a brown girl in a black-and-white world shouldnt be the same pain of a child growing up today looking at that statehouse.

See more here:

Nikki Haley On Flag Debate: People Aren't Going To 'Listen To You' And 'Work With You' If You 'Vilify' Them - The Daily Wire

With the recent Tory triumph in the British parliamentary elections, it is clear that the old, predictable dynamics of politics and public life are gone, at least for the immediate future. As we approach the U.S. presidential election in 2020, it seems likely that, whoever wins, it will not be somebody of moderate views and mild personality.

One note repeatedly struck by pundits is that of the opposition between populists and liberal elites. Such an approach provides a partial explanation for what we see unfolding before us: The lefts failure to achieve popular appeal is surely connected to the fact that it has abandoned traditional economic concepts of oppression for the psychologized categories of identity politics. And so the left now finds itself out of step with traditional workers, for whom jobs are more important than gender-blind bathroom policies or drag queen reading hours. The concerns of the cocktail party set in Chelsea or Manhattan are not the concerns of workers in Huddersfield or West Virginia.

Yet I would suggest that the real division in the politics of the earthly city is not between populists and elites, or the New Left and Everybody Else. It is between those who believe that human nature is a given and those who believe it is merely a social construct. And that distinction cuts across the grain of traditional political taxonomy, given that the latter is as compatible with right-wing libertarianism as with critical theory.

The symptoms are all around us, most obviously in the arbitrary morality of the moment. The NBA boycotts North Carolina over its bathroom policy, yet plays the fawning sycophant to China, a nation with a catastrophic record on human rights. Money may be the key factor, but that rests on a deeper (anti)metaphysical point: It is not that the NBA hypocritically strains at a gnat while swallowing a camel; it is that there is no longer any objective scale beyond the immediate exigencies of the economy by which to judge which are the gnats and which the camels. And what we see on the world stage with corporations like the NBA and nations like China we can all observe in our own small worlds, from those who decry traditional use of pronouns yet glory in abortion rights, to those who vilify political correctness but who are perennially outraged at the smallest perceived linguistic slight directed at themselves.

Our culture is increasingly an anti-culture, marked only by relentless iconoclasm. That is why I write for, and support, First Things. For all of the differences among the writers, it remains committed to showing, by precept and example, that civil discourse and honest, open discussion of the most important issues in this earthly city are vitalbecause there is such a thing as human nature, and therefore there is such a thing as human flourishing, which is not for us simply to invent for ourselves.

Carl R. Trueman is a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College.

Excerpt from:

Arguing for Truth in the Anti-Culture | Carl R. Trueman - First Things

Remembering the Alamo used to be fairly straightforward. The battle of 1836, Davy Crockett, John Wayneokay kids, back on the bus. But ever since 2014, this hallowed Texas monument has become the locus of a notably less cinematic war, all raging around the controversial plan to renovate and redesign it. At first blush, the Alamo master plan presented by Texas land commissioner George P. Bush seems pretty logical and perfectly reverent. Repair some cracks. Create a whole new museum to house the many artifacts that singer and Alamo buff Phil Collins donated, after growing bored of playing the In the Air Tonight drum solo with Jim Bowies knife. Close off the streets in front that have become home to carnivals, demonstrators, half-naked exhibitionists, and, occasionally, the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile.

But opponents quickly seized on the proposal to relocate the Alamo cenotaph to a new spotone closer to the funeral pyres where the bodies of the fallen Texas revolutionaries were burned, yet much farther away from the Alamo itself. This swelled into a controversy that grew even more complicated after San Antonio mayor Ron Nirenberg mused in a radio interview that he hoped the newly renovated Alamo would honor both sides. This seemingly throwaway platitudecoupled with some vague promise of healing on the renovation website and Nirenbergs recent removal of a Confederate war memorialhas sparked a raging battle of its own, aimed at the supposed scourge of political correctness thats out to erase Texas history. And that preemptive furor finally culminated last week in the wild accusations that Bush is so intent on telling everyones side of the story, he even wants to erect a statue of the Mexican tyrant Santa Anna, right there on the Alamo grounds.

The charge was leveled by a group that calls itself Save the Alamo and was launched by Bushs onetime political rival for the land commissioner job, Rick Range. And it likely would have remained there, swirling in the eternally screaming abyss of panicky Facebook shares, had Bush himself not brought attention to it through his own social media posts calling the rumor patently false, an outright lie, and quite frankly, flat-out racist.

And the fog of war has only thickened now that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has blundered into this mess. This week, Patrick issued a statement criticizing Bush and his staff, saying theyve derided anyone who disagrees with the Alamo redesign as a small vocal minority who are liars and racists. This is offensive and inaccurate. This is, of course, a rather sweeping mischaracterization of what actually happened, as Bush pointed out in his own official response: Lt. Gov. Patrick has taken my statement out of context, much like the small group of protesters and activists, Bush wrote. To clarify, I stated the accusation that I was erecting a statue of Santa Anna at the Alamo, and protesters continually referring to me with slurs such as Santa Anna Bush online is racist. He then went on to say that Patrick was twisting my words, adding, It is a very dangerous mistake for an elected official with his power to make.

You might think it all would have ended there, with Bush having made it plain that only those specific rumormongers among the plans opponents are the racists. But Patrickthe immortal words of William Barret Travis no doubt ringing in his earsproudly declared he would never surrender or retreat, issuing yet another statement to aver that he did not twist words or float rumors. He also doubled down on his criticism of Bush and the General Land Office for even mentioning those racist attacks in its official statement, saying he was surprised and disappointed.

Patrick is right that not all opponents of the Alamo plan are racists or liars, and that they constitute more than the small, vocal minority named rather dismissively by the General Land Office. Plans to move the cenotaph have been met with numerous protests, public hearings, and last-ditch legislative proposals over the past few years; clearly, its the biggest controversy the monument has seen since that time Ozzy Osbourne peed on it. Still, Bush is right to condemn an outright lieone that was cooked up by the guy who lost an election to him, no less. Patricks attempt to spin that as Bush dismissing all critics is every bit as disingenuous, and a needlessly distracting addition to a debate thats already plenty contentious and confusing. (We havent even touched on the lawsuit filed by descendants of the Native Americans buried thereand who for Bushs sake, hopefully werent among the human remains that were newly unearthed this very week.) Texans want to remember the Alamo, but when this is all over, well be lucky to remember our own names.

With controversies such as the Alamo kerfuffle, its enough to make you wonder why anyone ever wants to run for office. But a new ad from Wendy Davis posits that campaigning can be its own reward, with the former state senator announcing her run for Congress in Texass Twenty-first Congressional District with the rather dubious slogan, Running for office is truly the Gift That Gives Back. Thats true in one regard, at least: its already given Davis plenty of attention, thanks to its topical-ish spoof of that Peloton commercial that briefly unleashed a storm of online mockery and actually tanked the companys stock. In her version of the ad, Davis tries to get back into campaign shape to run against Republican representative Chip Roy. She documents her journey, from 6 a.m. wake-up calls to go talk to voters to (in a fairly loose interpretation of parody) taking video selfies while astride her own Peloton bike.

Its all perfectly cute, in the self-aware way that all commercial spoofs and campaign ads are, though its certainly a muddled message. After all, most of the negative reaction to the Peloton ad was centered on the idea that the woman was something akin to a hostage. She didnt have to be doing this. She only seemed to be committing herself to this pointless slog to prove something to a manor, in the most charitable reading, out of some doing-it-for-the-Gram narcissism. Neither is perhaps the subtext her campaign intended for Daviss reintroduction to politics. Theres also something slightly desperate about the fact that Davis tagged her post with the accounts for both actor Ryan Reynolds and his Aviation Gin, acknowledging the companys own Peloton spoof, but also not-so-subtly asking for his help making it go virala plea that, adding to the overall cringe factor, Reynolds seems to have ignored. Hopefully Daviss team will offer something a little more substantive next time, and resist the urge to dress her up as Baby Yoda.

Also spinning his wheels this week, former presidential candidate Beto ORourke has lately retreated to the familiar, returning to the comforting bosom and lowered stakes of state politics, and concentrating on offering general support for local progressive candidates. So it comes as no surprise that hes wrapped his face in the security blanket of a scruffy unemployment beard, which ORourke seems to grow whenever he no longer has voters to answer to. Good thing, too, seeing as Betos beard tends to be as polarizing as his thoughts on gun control.

Much as it did when he grew it out last January, not long after ORourke lost to (a similarly freshly bearded) Senator Ted Cruz, Betos beard has once again divided the nation over whether its a sign of virility or of depression, a bold reclamation of his free-agent status or some form of post-breakup wallowing. (For his part, Cruz himself approves.) But even more troublinglyand metaphoricallyBetos beard just doesnt seem to be generating the same level of excitement this time around. Even the parody Twitter account @BeardBeto appears to have lost interest long ago, apparently growing disenchanted enough to switch allegiances to [Elizabeth] Warrens Unscented Deodorant. Maybe Betos beard should have stuck closer to his face for a while, until it achieved the fullness it needed before branching out.

While Beto ORourke is out there letting his beard down in the freaky, ramble-tamble of semi-post-political life, maybe hell cross paths with Rick Perry, whos been similarly cut loose to follow his heartno longer answering to The Man, or the people who want to know how he might have helped The Man exact certain political pressures on foreign countries. Indeed, after bidding a perfectly timed farewellto the Department of Energy, Perry seems to have found a new source of his own. Perrys apparently been burning, burning, burning, like a fabulously coiffed Roman candle, hurtling across some sort of mad, Kerouacian journey to the heart of the American dream, only to end up stranded somewhere outside of Cisco.

The setback seems to have been temporary, at least, as Perry says he soon found himself rescued by at least 5 good Texans and one very good dog, a menagerie that swept Perry off the side of the highway and gave him a lift to the airport for his next adventure.

Who knows where Perrys boho odyssey will take him next, or what fellow travelers will join his restless search for kicks? Nothing behind him but Ukrainian lawsuits, nothing before him but cozy rewards from the private sector, as is ever so on the road. Why, this time tomorrow he could be watching a bullfight down Mexico way, or appearing on Fox News, or splitting a can of beans with a railcar hobo, or appearing on Fox News. Heres to the next patch of stars Perry lays his head under. Hopefully its nowhere near Washington, D.C. Or the Alamo.

Read more:

Bull Session: Remember the Alamo? And Wendy Davis? And That Peloton Ad? - Texas Monthly

Commentary

Americas historical amnesia hit a new low this month with aMonmouth University pollshowing that one out of three of those polled believe Barack Obama was a better president than George Washington.

The news was significantly more horrifying when considering the evaluations of self-identified Democrats who consider Obama to be a better president than Washington by a whopping 63 percent to 29 percent.

Republicans showed more historical sanity by ranking the Father of our Country above both Obama and President Donald Trump, but not by enough to justify much solace.

Just a few decades ago, it was controversial that Abraham Lincoln and, in some polls even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had surpassed Washington as the best president as ranked by elite historians. Those results, mostly from surveys of liberal-leaning academics, were troubling enough. The results of the Monmouth poll, however, are significantly more so.

That a case for Washington has to be made at all speaks volumes about the state of our civic education in the United States today. But, lets make the case for Washingtons greatness in just a few sentences.

First, he was known as the Father of his Country for the very good reason that he was our foundings Indispensable Man. The United States itself is inconceivable without Washington as our first Commander-in-Chief and our first president.

Second, there would be no presidency at all without him, the office being created around the assumption that he would be its first occupant and would fill in the blanks of the Constitution.

Now also consider that Washington was asked to ascend to an office unlike anything that ever existed. In an age of monarchy, the Constitutional Convention had created a republican executive. The vague language of the Constitutions Article II and the lack of historical examples put Washington into a situation where he, quite literally, had to invent the office as he enacted it.

What does it mean to be Commander-in-Chief? What does it mean to faithfully execute the laws? What does it mean to work with the Senate to write and ratify treaties? No president ever faced such a daunting situation because they all inherited an office Washington himself created. They had his precedence to rely on as they faced the challenges of their own age.

Putting the challenges faced by Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during the Great Depression aside for another day, theres simply no comparison at all between the challenges faced by our first president and those of his 44thand 45thsuccessors. The fact that the question was even dreamed up to be asked is, frankly, shocking in itself.

Through most of U.S. history, our fellow citizens would have been steeped in history enough to know that no contemporary president could surpass a man commonly recognized as one of the greatest men of modern times.

First, schools that once took citizen education as one of their core missions have largely abandoned the teaching of basic American history and civics under the pressure of relevance to the contemporary culture and the economy along with the worship of the subjects immortalized as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).

Second, many of our teachers today are trained in schools of education focusing on pedagogy and research and often dont have substantive degrees in history or a related discipline. Because civics and history are not as valued as they once were, even professional development opportunities for teachers in the field have been replaced by workshops on pedagogy, bullying, and literacy.

Third, slavery, the unforgivable sin of early America, now trumps every other consideration. Washington, no matter his virtues and centrality in the creation of the American political order, was a slaveholder and for that he cannot be forgiven in todays academy.

Washingtons reputation not only suffers from being a slaveholder but, more basically, from being yet another old white male. Political Correctness, by its very design, is an acid that spares no greatness that does not measure up to the latest value or fashion.

Fourth, the United States suffers from what C.S. Lewis diagnosed as chronological snobbery. Everything thats closer to us in time is, by the logic of evolution, progress, and technological advancement, better and more sophisticated than anything that came before.

The Monmouth University poll should worry all Americans and call us to action. If we care about the quality of our electorate and their historical knowledge, we should insist our schools value and reward the teaching of basic American history and civics. We should reform teacher education programs so that teachers in every state get degrees that focus on subject specialties more than pedagogical theories.

And we should support those organizations outside schools and the academy who focus on inspiring and educating teachers in professional development about American history and civics. Some of us have been toiling in these fields for decades but need more help from the public and buy-in from our school administrators.

If our students, and the general public, dont know American history and the foundations of our constitutional order enough to know that George Washingtons greatness is in a different category entirely than any recent politician, how can they be expected not to fall for the latest demagogue, political huckster, or fad?

Gary L. Gregg is the host of the podcastVital Remnantsand is author of a number of books on Americas founding principles.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Read more:

Obama Better Than George Washington? Americas Crisis in Civic Education - The Epoch Times

Ivanka Trump has ended 2019 in the most Ivanka way possible: conducting a pretend interview with a friendly journalist at a conference that she was not fit to attend.

Over the weekend, the first daughter rounded off a year of tirelessly promoting herself with an appearance at the Doha Forum, which is one of those Davos-like conferences where the rich and powerful get together to hobnob and release huge amounts of hot air into the atmosphere. All in the name of solving the worlds most complex problems, of course.

As usual, Ivanka was one of the least qualified people in the room but also one of the most shameless. While government officials such as Turkeys foreign minister and Rwandas president fielded hard-hitting questions from journalists, Ivanka was interviewed by Morgan Ortagus, a US state department spokeswoman and former Fox News contributor. In other words, Ivanka basically sat down for an interview with her own PR person.

As you can imagine, the questions were brutal. Ortagus delivered sycophantic prompts such as: You were able to put womens prosperity into the national security strategy. That was so important to me that you did that and Id love for you to explain that. Obligingly, Ivanka waxed lyrical about how wonderful she is, while Ortagus oohed and aahed.

Ivankas extraordinarily softball interview raised some eyebrows. Even Vladimir Putin doesnt get interviewed by [the Kremlin press secretary] Dmitri Peskov, complained one Russian journalist. Poor Ivanka was immediately dismissed as Nepotism Barbie by the Twitterati, which was rather below the belt; Barbies daddy never gave her a high-ranking job in the government.

But that is enough snark. Whatever you think of Ivanka, she has achieved an astonishing amount this year. As her father announced recently to the Economic Club of New York, she single-handedly created 14m jobs which is truly remarkable when you consider that the entire US economy has added only 6m jobs under Trump.

Of course, Ivanka has done more than anyone to empower women. In February, she launched the Womens Global Development and Prosperity initiative to help 50 million female entrepreneurs globally. This would be great, were it not for the fact that her daddys government has made enormous cuts to foreign aid and reinstated the global gag rule that means international NGOs are barred from US government health funding if they perform or promote abortions. As Oxfam has noted, Ivankas initiatives wont even come close to making up for the damage done by the Trump administration.

The inspiring thing about Ivanka is that reality never gets in her way. She is blessed with the opposite of imposter syndrome. She is a motivational quote in high heels there is nothing Ivanka thinks she cant do. To be fair, there is little she hasnt done. This year alone, she rubbed shoulders with world leaders at the G20; sashayed into North Korea with her papa and declared the experience surreal; patronised women on a grand tour of Africa; and bought the worlds whitest dog.

It is easy to laugh at her. But if 2019 has taught us anything, it is that the Trump family is having the last laugh. They have weaponised exhaustion. From day one of Donalds presidency, they have eschewed established norms and acted shamelessly. Meanwhile, the rest of us have grown too tired to remain outraged. We have become used to Ivanka placing herself on the world stage. But beware: the woman is a wolf in chic clothing.

Sticking with the Trumps, sad news from the muddy trenches of Manhattan, where I have spent the better part of a decade fighting the war on Christmas. It has been a bloody battle and there have been times when my comrades in the PC army have come tantalisingly close to victory. Alas, our enemy triumphed. We must finally admit defeat: the war on Christmas has been lost. The Trumps and their allies have won. And by God are they smug about it.

We now dont have the political correctness we used to, crowed the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro during a recent interview with Eric Trump (the blond one who looks perpetually confused) and his wife, Lara. People are actually saying: Merry Christmas.

Lara joyously concurred. You can say Merry Christmas again! she exclaimed. Isnt that so nice, Jeanine? Eric agreed that it was just so nice, Jeanine. Its incredible, he enthused, as best his seventh-grade vocabulary would allow. It is nice to say Merry Christmas again This is what the American dream is all about We can sit there with a Santa Claus and with beautiful trees and eat ice-cream. Activities that, of course, were outlawed under Obama.

If you werent a footsoldier in the war, you could be forgiven for not knowing the conflict even existed. Of all the stealth battles that have been fought, the war on Christmas was truly the stealthiest. No one but the devout viewers of Fox knew it was happening. Indeed, according to a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University, watching Fox increased the likelihood someone would believe in the festive conflict by between 5% and 10%. It is almost as if the whole thing was a delusion dreamed up by the right.

But worry not, my friends: all is not lost. The war may be over, but there are plenty more battles to fight. I dont know about you, but I am going to spend the non-denominational holidays recharging my environmentally friendly batteries. And then I am off to fight in the war against men.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist

More here:

How Ivanka and Eric Trump conquered the world and rescued Christmas - The Guardian

Zachary Leeman

A new crew of comedians is attempting a reboot of National Lampoon in the age of political correctness, and its only going to tarnish the memory of something that was once unique and special.

The National Lampoon Radio Hour introduced the world to young brilliantly funny performers like John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Chevy Chase, Billy Murray, and Harold Ramis. It was a comedy sketch radio program broadcast to hundreds of stations. It contained everything from humorous tunes to fake satirical game shows.

Running from 1973 to 1974, with various albums following, the program was lightning in a bottle, a perfect chaotic blend of rebellious talents gathered at exactly the right time. The radio show itself was an offshoot of the popular National Lampoon magazine, which made its name by threatening to kill a dog if you didnt buy it.

Its hard to imagine National Lampoon existing today and having the magic it once did. The brand mostly petered out by the 1990s, and many hardcore fans had abandoned it before the 1980s even hit.

Well, National Lampoon is back sort of. Like most reboots and remakes this new age has brought us, its got the name, but it seems to have been shed of its edge which is sadly similar to what happened to the National Lampoon films over time. The Radio Show has returned in podcast form and it doesnt even have the right to be in the shadow of what once was National Lampoon.

There are still sketches performed by comedians, but theyre just so... safe. Theres a quick sketch of Second Lady Karen Pence walking through the rainforest confused, and another about a man travelling through history to play devils advocate for people like Hitler. Those sketches cant hold a candle to the ones presented in the 1970s, like Land a Million where a housewife is playing a life or death game show on a Boeing 747, or the 1974 dark parody of cult writer and notorious bad boy Hunter S. Thompson.

Gone are the boundary-pushing skits that challenged a culture in the 1970s. Its now like 'SNL,' but without the occasional chuckle.

Evan Shapiro, the man responsible for National Lampoon 2.0, has been making the press rounds emphasizing the diversity of the new program. He even managed to take a dig at the beginnings of National Lampoon in an interview with Varietys Strictly Business podcast this week.

'We took extra pains to include the people who were excluded last time. If you werent a cisgendered white dude from Harvard or white woman from that crowd then you were excluded. And not on purpose but systematic institutional bias,' he said of his new cast, compared to the old one.

Great. Diversity. Now can we talk about funny?

One of the troubles with Shapiro is that he seems to be a full-blown supporter of woke mobs and PC steam trains, railroading anyone who says a joke deemed offensive.

'This time, the same week Shane Gillis and Saturday Night Live got all that guff for the things [Gillis] said on a podcast we announced one of the most diverse casts and writers rooms in comedy,' Shapiro said in his interview. 'It wasnt hard to find talented people, of gender fluidity and color diversity and different types of backgrounds. There are more of them now than there ever has been.'

For those who dont remember, Gillis was a comedian hired by SNL, but quickly fired when comments deemed offensive to Asians were found on a years-old podcast. It would appear as though Shapiro has no problem with Gillis getting canned.

Shapiro also argues that there really is no political correctness problem today.

'Yes, its hard to be in comedy if youre not a good writer,' he argues. 'But if youre very inclusive in your point of view and youre very inclusive in the talent you hang out with, and you put yourself in situations where the biases you might have been taught as a young person are challenged on an ongoing basis, its not very difficult to be funny and not piss people off, not piss the wrong people off.'

Mind you, hes saying this in a world where Roseanne Barr was fired for a tweet, comedians like Jerry Seinfeld refuse to visit safe space college campuses, and Kevin Hart is pressured out of a gig after getting heat for old jokes hed already apologized for.

Even director Todd Phillips, the man behind The Hangover trilogy, said he turned to pitch-black content like Joker after seeing the cultural waters change and finding comedy a bit too much trouble to do today.

Imagine, if you will, that National Lampoon launched today instead of in the 1970s. Same cast, same writers. Just place them in a different period. Considering the rock and roll, countercultural, high-minded comedy that was being pushed through both the Radio Hour and the magazine, do you think theyd really be arguing in favor of political correctness? Or would they be going against the grain and doing everything they can to challenge a culture that is becoming more and more socially oppressive under the guise of inclusivity?

Maybe this is why National Lampoon should just be left alone. It was so special and unique and perfect for its time that maybe it cant thrive under todays rules. Instead of tarnishing the memory of what once was by trying to rebrand it, maybe we should study it and learn from it and try and create something new that pushes back against the culture in the same way that Lampoon did decades ago.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Originally posted here:

Woke National Lampoon 2.0 is here to kill our fond memories - RT

On Wednesday, Donald Trump will likely be impeached by the House of Representatives for high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States Constitution, American democracy and the rule of law. Even though Trump will certainly be acquitted in the Senate by his Republican minions, his impeachment is long overdue and very much earned.

On Sunday night, the House Judiciary Committee released its 658-page impeachment report, summarizing Trump's crimes:

He has abused his power in soliciting and pressuring a vulnerable foreign nation to corrupt the next United States Presidential election by sabotaging a political opponent and endorsing a debunked conspiracy theory promoted by our adversary, Russia. He has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that will continue if left unchecked. Accordingly, President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

On Monday, Trump released a totally unhinged six-page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, attacking her, the House Democratic majority and the entire impeachment process. It is a truly astonishing document, unlike anything ever previously written (or dictated) by an American president, a semi-literate display of false claims, victimology and grievance-mongering. As Daniel Dale and Tara Subramaniam of CNN have written,"It was on White House letterhead. It read like a string of President Donald Trump's tweets.And it was just as dishonest."

In total, Donald Trump is the nightmare scenario envisioned by the framers. He is precisely why they included impeachment and removal from office in the Constitution as a remedy for a tyrant or other usurper of democracy and the rule of law.

Historian Jeffrey Engel, co-author of Impeachment: An American History, explained this to Sky News:

Their primary examples of when a president would need to be removed from office all involved a president who worked with foreign powers, who came under the influence of foreign powers, and in particular who in some way lied or disseminated in order to achieve office, and then achieve office again, to keep their first commission of crimes from being found out. So I think this is the one that is the closest to what the founders actually feared.

Contrary to warnings by Beltway insiders and others that impeaching Donald Trump would lead to a backlash against the Democrats among voters, so far the opposite appears to have happened.

Since the Ukraine scandal first hit the news, opinion polls have shown a growing level of support for impeaching Trump. In fact, more Americans now support impeaching Donald Trump than supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974.

Even Fox News, which functions as Trump state-sponsored media, has been forced to admit that almost half of registered voters want to see Trump impeached and removed from office. Their result was very close to the average of 48 percent or so across a range of other polls.

In response, Donald Trump lashed out at Fox News on Twitter condemning their poll as [A]lways inaccurate, are heavily weighted toward Dems. So ridiculous same thing happened in 2016. They got it all wrong. Get a new pollster!"

Trumps opponents and critics have reason to feel ebullient: Even the network that is Trumps most stalwart defender and ally has evidence that the public mood has turned increasingly hostile toward him.

But Trump should perhaps be happier if he looked more closely. And his detractors should moderate their gloating.

A closer examination of the new Fox News poll shows that support for impeaching Donald Trump is largely a function of extreme political polarization and the power of the right-wing disinformation machine. The presidents Republican voters continue to support him in overwhelming and consistent numbers.

The Fox News poll also shows Trump being defeated by all of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, with Joe Biden leading Trump by seven points. But viewed in a broader context, that poll also indicates thatTrumps overall job approval has remained steady throughout the impeachment process and for most of three years in office.

Writing at the Atlantic, David Graham explores this phenomenon:

The lack of movement over the past few weeks, given the overwhelming evidence, is certainly disheartening. As Michael Tesler writes in The Washington Post, the most persuadable voters arent paying much attention to the impeachment. Most voters are likely following their party affiliation: A long line of social science research shows that when political elites are this sharply divided, the public follows their lead. Partisan messaging is so powerful that Americans tend to adopt their partys standpoint even when that position runs counter to science and objective facts.

Thus the paradox of impeachment politics: Supporting impeachment is anathema for Republicans. Supporting impeachment seems to be hurting vulnerable Democratic politicians, at least marginally. But support for impeachment remains remarkably strong, and also, Trumps approval remains as stable as ever.

Centrist Democrats and their allies in the news media who still insist on dispensing conventional wisdom about the enduring strength of Americas political institutions, and about the inherent decency of Trumps voters, are incapable of accepting a basic fact: Donald Trump is loved by his supporters and has the highest level of base support among any president in the history of modern polling largely because of his disregard and disdain for democracy, the rule of law and basic human decency. Impeachment will not change that fact. In the worst-case scenario, impeachment may make Trump more popular not less. This will happen because of Trump's shared "victim" narrative with his supporters and because Trump's criminality gives his supporters a deviant thrill.

For Trumpers and other conservatives, impeachment by the Democrats embodies the political correctness they pathologically rail against and obsess about.

Donald Trump lies now more than 15,000 times since taking office, as tallied by the Washington Post. His supporters do not care.

Trumps supporters have also told pollsters that they are concerned or wish that he would tone down his crude and other horrible behavior. Yet they also assure pollstersthat their support for Trump is unwavering. Research has shown that the most ardent Trump supporters and other followers of the global right are attracted to chaos and destruction. They view Donald Trump as a tool for advancing that goal.

Although Trump is an unrepentant and avowed sinner, a cruel and greedy man who puts babies and children in cages, and an abusive lecher who has been credibly accused by numerous women of sexual harassment and sexual assault, a recent poll by PRRI shows that white Christian evangelicals are near-unanimous in their support. These so-called Christians have twisted their own mythology to convince themselves that Trump is Gods tool or prophet and therefore fulfills divine purpose in America and around the world.

Trumps dangerous behavior is not some type of outlier or a special and unique case. In many ways, he is the distillation of todays Republican Party and conservative movement, which is dedicated tousing both quasi-legal and illegal means to keep nonwhites and other likely Democratic voters coalition from voting at all.

Social science research shows that many white Americans embrace authoritarianism as a way of maintaining absolute power as a group instead of sharing power with nonwhite Americans in a multiracial democracy. This echoes repeated findings that racism and racial animus overdetermined Trump support, rather than "economic anxiety" among the white working class. Other research shows that white Republicans, and especially Trump supporters, are much more likely to be racist than are white Democrats.

From the end of the civil rights movement forward, American conservatism has become increasingly allied with white supremacy. As such, todays conservatives view Americas multiracial democracy as an existential threat. The election of Barack Obama created a full-on state of white rage and racial paranoia about the browning of America." This victimology and white rage metastasized into the fascist Trump movement.

Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of the bestselling book How Democracies Die,"explain this in their September New York Times op-ed, Why Republicans Play Dirty:

The growing diversity of the American electorate is making it harder for the Republican Party to win national majorities. Republicans have won the popular vote in presidential elections just once in the last 30 years.

The problem runs deeper than electoral math, however. Much of the Republican base views defeat as catastrophic. White Christians are losing more than an electoral majority; their once-dominant status in American society is eroding.

American democracy faces a Catch-22: Republicans wont abandon their white identity bunker strategy until they lose, but at the same time that strategy has made them so averse to losing they are willing to bend the rules to avoid this fate. There is no easy exit. Republican leaders must either stand up to their base and broaden their appeal or they must suffer an electoral thrashing so severe that they are compelled to do so.

In the Atlantic, George Packer summarizes the Republican Partys corruption and embrace of authoritarianism:

Todays Republican Party has cornered itself with a base of ever older, whiter, more male, more rural, more conservative voters. Demography can take a long time to change longer than in progressives dreams but it isnt on the Republicans side. They could have tried to expand; instead, theyve hardened and walled themselves off. This is why, while voter fraud knows no party, only the Republican Party wildly overstates the risk so that it can pass laws (including right now in Wisconsin, with a bill that reduces early voting) to limit the franchise in ways that have a disparate partisan impact. This is why, when some Democrats in the New Jersey legislature proposed to enshrine gerrymandering in the state constitution, other Democrats, in New Jersey and around the country, objected.

Taking away democratic rights extreme gerrymandering; blocking an elected president from nominating a Supreme Court justice; selectively paring voting rolls and polling places; creating spurious anti-fraud commissions; misusing the census to undercount the opposition; calling lame-duck legislative sessions to pass laws against the will of the voters is the Republican Partys main political strategy, and will be for years to come.

Republicans have chosen contraction and authoritarianism because, unlike the Democrats, their party isnt a coalition of interests in search of a majority. Its character is ideological.

Trump and the Republicans' embrace of authoritarianism and other anti-democratic behavior is a symptom of other, larger problems in Americas political culture as well.

Too many Americans treat politics as a team-sports contest instead of as a serious, important debate where the countrys future and present are being decided by responsible, reflective citizens. As demonstrated by Patrick Miller and Pamela Johnston Conover in their 2015 Political Science Quarterly article Red and Blue States of Mind," 41 percent of respondents who identified with the Democratic or Republican parties believe that winning is more important than policy goals or advancing a particular ideological agenda. Thirty-eight percent of respondents believed that their political parties should use all available means including cheating, censorship, and violence to win.

Given what is known about asymmetrical polarization in America, the sports team logic of the Republican Party, its media and supporters has repeatedly shown itself to be especially toxic to American democracy and society.

In the final analysis, President Donald Trump is being impeached because he is a political thug and a dreadful person. But these contemptible qualities and behaviors are exactly why so many of his followers are so attracted to him. What Democrats and other decent people see as sins, Trumpers instead see as virtues. This dynamic is a function of the political deviancy and moral inversion common to sick societies.

The way most Democrats and liberals understand the power and allure of Trumpism and what lies ahead, after impeachment and the 2020 election is hamstrung by an unwillingness to accept precisely why Trumps hold over his supporters is so absolute and powerful.

When they go low we go high! and other such high-minded incantations will not defeat authoritarians like Donald Trump. If Democrats want to win in 2020 and beyond, they mustfight both harder and smarterthan they have been willing to fight so far.

Read more from the original source:

It's a very bad week for Donald Trump but he remains a dangerous foe - Salon

Whether hes dancing the Cupid Shuffle or wearing a button pledging to Make Americans Think Harder, tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang has run anything but a normal presidential campaign. That seems fitting for a political novice whose background in law and technology has given his campaign an unusual top issue: a signature proposal for a universal basic income Yang calls it the Freedom Dividend to mitigate the effects of automation and job loss on the economy. At one debate, Yang even announced that his campaign would give 10 families $1,000 per month for the next year as a case study for his UBI proposal.

And although Yangs support continues to hover in the single digits about 3 percent nationally, on average he is one of seven candidates who made the December debate, and he is also the only candidate of color to make the cut. So heres a look at what we know about Yangs small, but loyal support the Yang Gang and what it can tell us about his presidential bid.

Yangs strength comes primarily from voters under the age of 45, especially those between the ages of 18-to-29. Take Morning Consults large-sample weekly tracking poll where they interviewed more than 13,000 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide from Dec. 9 to Dec. 15. In that survey, Yang received 9 percent support among 18-to-29 year olds, which put him fourth behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (44 percent), former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (12 percent). So even though Yang had far less overall support in the poll than Sanders (4 percent versus 22 percent), Yang actually had the largest share of supporters under the age of 45 (74 percent compared with Sanderss 69 percent).

Share of overall support for Democratic presidential candidates from primary voters younger than 45 vs. those 45 or older, according to Morning Consults weekly tracking survey

Data for Morning Consult weekly tracking poll conducted Dec. 9-15, with sample size of 13,384 respondents. Only candidates polling at 2 percent or higher were included. Calculations were made with data rounded to the tenths place.

Source: Morning Consult

Additionally, Yang enjoys less overall support among the older half of the 18-to-44 range, with the backing of about 5 percent of 30-to-44 year olds, putting him fifth behind Sanders, Biden, Warren, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

As for why Yang has an outsized appeal among younger voters given his overall standing, he has without question run an internet-savvy campaign, leaning into the meme culture popular among his supporters online. Hes also appeared on well-known podcasts, answered questions from users on Reddit and Quora and promised to give one Twitter user $1,000 per month just for retweeting him, which attracted over 100,000 retweets. But Yang also hasnt shied away from discussing the dark underbelly of technology. Thats an issue that resonates with many young people, who have grown up in an era where tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Google have dominated the marketplace and are helping alter the future of work. Yang thinks a UBI is necessary to counteract this sort of economic disruption, especially as things continue to change in the coming years.

Yang, who has been called a doomer because of his outlook, believes President Trump won in 2016 because people were worried about losing their jobs in a fast-changing world. And as young people are most familiar with the ins and outs of new technology, its understandable why a candidate who is heavily engaged with technologys benefits and pitfalls may be so attractive to younger voters.

In addition to Yangs support trending young, it is also very male. For instance, in that Morning Consult survey, Yang earned 11 percent among 18-to-29 year-old men versus just 6 percent among women in that same age group. And according to The Economists polling with YouGov, his support among men in this age group is about 10 percent, while his support among women is in the low-to-mid single digits. Interestingly, differences between men and women largely disappear among older age groups.

Theres also evidence of Yangs appeal to younger male voters aside from the polls, however. For example, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in November found that women were less likely than men to contribute to his campaign only 29 percent of Yangs itemized contributions have come from female donors so far. (Only Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has raised less among women donors 24 percent.) Another sign is Yangs share price in betting markets, whose participants are predominantly young men. As of publication, PredictIt prices Yangs shares around 8 cents for winning the Democratic nomination analogous to a slightly less than 10 percent chance despite polling at around 3 percent nationally.

Asian Americans are also a very important part of Yangs base. While Asian Americans will make up only around 5 percent of the primary electorate, Morning Consult found Yang at 19 percent among them, behind only Biden (24 percent) and Sanders (22 percent). And Yangs support among Asian Americans has consistently outdistanced his overall numbers. Back in September, for instance, Yang polled at 8 percent in a survey from AAPI Victory Fund/Change Research of just Asian American and Pacific Islander primary voters even though he was polling at about 2 percent nationally.

Part of this may be because so few Asian Americans have run for president. There were Asian American Hawaiians like Republican Sen. Hiram Fong, who got a handful of votes at the 1964 and 1968 GOP conventions, and Democratic Rep. Patsy Mink, who won a small number of votes in the 1972 primary, but their bids were a long time ago. Granted, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is Indian American, ran for the Republican presidential nomination last cycle, but he struggled to attract more than 1 percent in the polls and suspended his campaign in November 2015, well before any votes were cast. So in the 2020 primary, Yang, along with Sen. Kamala Harris (who is part Indian American but has since dropped out), have perhaps given Asian American voters at long last someone from their constituency to back, which can help explain why so many have rallied to Yangs side.

As a fellow outsider candidate, Yangs appeal also shares some traits with Gabbards in that Yang also broke through in part via nontraditional venues, including outlets that are considered part of the Intellectual Dark Web, a politically amorphous network that generally criticizes concepts such as political correctness and identity politics. Like Gabbard, Yang also hasnt shied away from going on conservative talk shows, doing interviews with Fox News personality Tucker Carlson and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, whereas some Democrats have refused to appear on Fox News. Yangs donor count also exploded after appearing on The Joe Rogan Experience, one of the most popular podcasts in the country, which also helped Gabbards campaign.

Still, for being an outsider candidate, Yang doesnt get as much support from Trump supporters or conservatives as Gabbard does. In last weeks poll from The Economist/YouGov, for instance, 25 percent of Trump voters who said they plan to vote in the 2020 Democratic primary said they intended to support Gabbard, versus just 2 percent who said they would support Yang. Similarly, in that Morning Consult poll, Gabbard received 5 percent among very conservative and conservative primary voters (and very little support among more liberal voters), whereas Yangs support was more ideologically balanced, ranging anywhere from 2 to 4 percent across all five ideological groups.

Nor does Yang get as much disproportionately liberal support as another outsider in the race: Sanders. Thats despite notable overlap between Sanderss supporters and Yangs supporters, according to Morning Consults second choice voter data. That Morning Consult survey found that 8 percent of Sanderss supporters picked Yang as their second choice, while a whopping 33 percent of Yangs backers said Sanders was their backup option. Yet in that same poll Sanders got the most support from very liberal and liberal voters (29 percent and 22 percent, respectively) and less from moderate and conservative voters as a whole, so his support was more weighted toward more liberal voters than Yangs.

However, one thing that all three candidates have in common is that all three attract higher levels of support from self-identified independents than Democrats. This isnt exactly a surprise for Sanders, considering he did better among independents than Democrats in the 2016 primary. But in that Morning Consult poll, the trend is obvious: Sanders earned 28 percent support among independents, compared with 21 percent among Democrats, while Yang earned 6 percent support from independents, compared with 3 percent among Democrats. Gabbard also picked up 4 percent among independents and only 1 percent among Democrats. This generally holds up across other polls, too, in which all three candidates get higher percentages among independents than Democrats, though obviously there be will more self-identified Democrats voting in the primary than independents.

With only seven candidates making the cut for Decembers debate, its fair to say that Yangs outsider candidacy has broken through in the Democratic primary in large part thanks to enthusiasm for him among younger voters and Asian Americans.

The question now is whether he can expand his appeal beyond 3 or 4 percent nationally. Raising nearly $10 million in the third quarter certainly helps his case thats real money he can use to build an on-the-ground campaign structure in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. And with an army of small donors, Yang may have a reliable source of money to broaden his reach. Still, the crowded group of four candidates at the top of the polls will make it tough for him to actually win the nomination.

Nonetheless, Yangs continued presence in the primary when other candidates with more traditional resumes have already dropped out speaks volumes to his appeal. Perhaps Thursday night will be an opportunity for him to gain real momentum. After all, despite speaking the fewest words in the last debate, Yangs net favorability improved the most of any candidate on stage in our polling with Ipsos. Maybe dont write Yang off just yet, even if a lot would have to go right for him to break into the top four.

See original here:

What We Know About Andrew Yangs Base - FiveThirtyEight

By Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.

As you have no doubt seen and heard, two recent arrests of immigrant women vending churros (a long donut like pastry) has resulted in a huge controversy. Ive linked 3 of the many articles on this below my personal comments.

The media and elected officials have feigned outrage over the 2 arrests and they are linking the arrests to 2 new proposed vending laws which, if passed, will forever change NYC vending for the worse. The 2 arrests are being used as proof that all the vending laws need to be radically changed. Need I mention that the Street Vendor Project, a City Council funded front group that has spent years trying to eliminate the rights of street artists, helped write these 2 proposed laws and is using all of its resources to get them passed? The City Council bill was cooked up by by a giant food vending corporation [MOVE SYSTEMS] funded by Wall St billionaires, the Street Vendor Project and a corrupt City Council Speaker with direct ties to the food company. [for details see: https://www.facebook.com/stopintro1303/ ]

Suddenly, both the media and the elected officials are pretending that vendor arrests are either unknown or rarely happen and they are further pretending that this was some kind of racist attack by the NYPD on Hispanic vendors.

The reality is that all vendors experience some degree of harassment. There are thousands of vendors arrested in NYC each year and tens of thousands summonsed. These women had many previous summonses for vending in the subway and simply refused to stop doing it. These were legitimate police actions not harassment.

One can feel sympathy for anyone being arrested or summonsed while at the same time recognize that there are vending laws for a reason. Food vending laws are, to my thinking, the most reasonable vending laws.

These 2 women were unlicensed, had no food vending permit, a completely illegal cart and were vending in the subway, which is illegal for all vendors regardless of what they sell. If there is any type of vending that actually needs to be closely regulated, it is food vending.

A single food vendor with a communicable disease, a dirty cart or who mishandles food, can create an epidemic. Thats why food carts require a vending license, a food cart permit and a certification in proper food handling. They dont want food vending in the subway because NYC subways already have a huge rat problem and food vending will make it much worse. Imagine trying to get into a subway car or out onto a rush hour subway platform that is crammed with food carts.

For most of my life I worked as an illegal vendor. I am not opposed to anyone getting a vending license; but I am opposed to fake vending reform that pretends to be about helping poor vendors but is actually about helping the biggest and wealthiest food vending corporations.

The 2 proposed laws are a scam. They want to completely eliminate any cap on how many food vendors there can be and make getting the license and permit very easy. Sounds good right?

But theres a catch.

A legal food cart has to have hot and cold running water. They cost anywhere from 5 to 50 thousand dollars. The cart and the food has to be stored in an authorized commissary, which would cost many thousands more. And, they still wont be able to vend in the subway, let alone vend from a cardboard box on top of a shopping cart.

Whats more, these proposed laws provide that a vendor getting 4 summonses loses their license; the City Council bill puts all vending decisions into the hands of the BIDs; and the State law gives cities and parks the right to create any new limits on vending they like.

Whats the real agenda behind these 2 proposed laws? Is it about helping poor immigrant vendors?

Apart from scoring points for political correctness, its about helping giant food corporations take over all vending. A food vending company can only own 1 food vending permit. By increasing the number of permits out there (removing the cap) these food vending corporations can temporarily buy up thousands of permits from the vendors who obtain them, exactly as they do now with a huge black market in food vending permits.

Once the streets are completely overrun with thousands of new food vendors, the City will have no choice but to create a concession system, exactly as exists throughout NYC Parks, where 2 or 3 companies own every food cart and stand. Immigrant employees paid less than minimum wage run these stands. Thats the wonderful future the elected officials are setting up for the vendors they are pretending to help.

When you see these hypocrite elected officials posing as champions of the vendors, dont forget that it is these exact same pols who wrote the vending laws and who mercilessly pressure the police to enforce them.

The very same media outlets pretending to be outraged about these arrests, such as the NY Times, have spent decades demanding crackdowns on vending. In fact, the NY Times started the Times Sq BID, one of the most anti-vending organizations in NYC.

One might ask, how is this different from the City arresting artists in the hundreds from 1993-2001? Didnt we protest hundreds of times? didnt we try to change the vending laws?

The difference is that artists were already considered to be First Amendment protected by the NY District Attorney as early as 1993. Every one of those arrests were illegal and unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional right to vend food in the subway. Moreover, we changed the vending laws in such a way as to help all vendors.

In fact, under the rights we won, immigrant vendors can legally sell books, art, cds, dvds and other First Amendment related materials without any license or permit.

These proposed bills are poison to every form of vending.

Please stop exploiting immigrants to make yourselves appear to be enlightened public servants. You are fooling no one.

NY Times: Handcuffed for Selling Churros: Inside the World of Illegal Food Vendors

Daily News: Cries for justice on the subways as NYPDs crackdown on Brooklyn churro vendors brings a second arrest

[NOTE: The writer has vended in NYC since 1962 as both a street artist and a food vendor]

Go here to read the rest:

Churro vendor controversy: Separating The Facts From The Political Correctness - Pressenza, International Press Agency

Foreign desk: An Arab-Israeli Ray of Hope

Thirty prominent public figures from 15 Arab countries, some facing serious personal security issues, gathered in London last week to repudiate the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel and demand their nations establish direct civil relations with the Jewish state, reports Jenni Frazer at the Jewish Journal. Attendees included Mohammed Anwar Sadat, a member of the Egyptian Parliament and a nephew of former President Anwar Sadat; former Kuwaiti Minister of Information Sami Abdul-Latif Al-Nisf; as well as other religious and political notables. The group recounted personal stories about good relations with Jews and deplored terrorism, brainwashing kids against Israel and politicizing Islam. Former US diplomat Dennis Ross called the participants courageous and a ray of hope. And while no government was officially involved, the views expressed are bound to resonate throughout the Middle East.

2020 watch: Ivy League Folly Is How Trump Wins

Saturdays Yale-Harvard football game was delayed for about an hour because of students protesting climate change on the field at the end of halftime, Mediaites John Ziegler fumes and it was just the kind of extreme political correctness that will get President Trump re-elected come next year. The protesters deliberately timed their action to waste maximum time and gain maximum media attention. Instead of cracking down, however, officials at Yale, where the game was held, treated the radicals with kid gloves, the kind their spoiled, affluent cohort has come to fully expect. And while voters wont remember this particular debacle when they step into the booth next year, Trumps political rocket ship is fueled by the extremely negative reaction Middle America has to political correctness. All the brilliant Yalies did was add a bit more gas to his tank.

City desk: Prohibit Parking To Save Space

While critics bemoan any change to street parking in New York City, Connor Harris argues in City Journal that the systems familiarity blinds residents to the fact that todays system is inefficient, anti-free-market and unfair. For example, the city could install hygienic municipal dumpsters on reallocated parking spots, preventing garbage from piling up on trash-collection days, or convert spots to bus lanes and loading zones. Also, cheap street parking exists by government fiat: Letting the free market decide what to do with a space could raise its price or convert it to more productive uses. Fact is, even without street parking, New Yorks drivers could easily afford the true cost of driving and non-drivers would be better off.

Culture critic: Dolly Doesnt Need Times Lectures

A recent New York Times profile of Dolly Parton sneered at the country-music legends supposed failure to make the slightest hint of a political statement which should win the paper some sort of prize for statements that are best at missing what is in plain sight, snarks the Walter Olson at Cato. Partons positive persona and enormous charitable contributions make a perfectly legitimate political statement, as one Twitter correspondent told Olson. Besides, Olson notes, shes written plenty of songs about poverty, about the thing between men and women and about responding to bad treatment with forgiveness and magnanimity. Or as another tweeter put it: Dolly Partons life is a political statement for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Brexit watch: A Collapsing Remain

Party loyalty has blurred in Britain since the Brexit referendum, The Spectators James Forsyth reports, but feelings about the referendum are almost stronger than they were on June 23, 2016, the day of the original vote, with pro-Leave and pro-Remain the strongest political forces in Britain. Remainers, however, have been unable to unite behind any one party or leader, and that lack of cohesion has proved fatal. Most damaging: Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn is determined to maintain ambiguity in Labours Brexit position, limiting a Remain alliance to minor parties. Unless Remainers can turn things around in the next three weeks, their cause will be lost.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Go here to read the rest:

A ray of Arab-Israeli hope and other commentary - New York Post

If Donald Trump gets his wish, hell soon take the three convicted or accused war criminals he spared from consequence on the road as special guests in his reelection campaign, according to two sources who have heard Trump discuss their potential roles for the 2020 effort.

Despite military and international backlash to Trumps Nov. 15 clemency fallout from which cost Navy Secretary Richard Spencer his job on Sunday Trump believes he has rectified major injustices. Two people tell The Daily Beast theyve heard Trump talk about how hed like to have the now-cleared Clint Lorance, Matthew Golsteyn, or Edward Gallagher show up at his 2020 rallies, or even have a moment on stage at his renomination convention in Charlotte next year. Right-wing media has portrayed all three as martyrs brought down by political correctness within the military.

He briefly discussed making it a big deal at the convention, said one of these sources, who requested anonymity to talk about private conversations. The president made a reference to the 2016 [convention] and where they brought on-stage heroes like former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, who refused to execute detained civilians ahead of a devastating Taliban attack.

Former Army Lt. Lorance was sentenced to 19 years in prison in 2013 for murder after ordering his soldiers in 2010 to fire on three unarmed Afghan men riding a motorcycle, killing two of them. He walked out of military prison at Fort Leavenworth on Nov. 15. Next month, former Green Beret Maj. Golsteyn was supposed to stand trial for the murder of an unarmed Afghan man whom he told the CIA he killed in the belief the man was a Taliban bombmaker. Golsteyn, who allegedly burned the mans corpse, pleaded not guilty to the murder; the Green Berets stripped Golsteyn of his Special Forces tab. Lorance and Golsteyn were both causes clbre in certain military circles and among their right-wing supporters, as was Navy SEAL Chief Gallagher.

A military jury this summer acquitted Gallagher for the murder of a wounded teenage fighter for the so-called Islamic State. The case, which both featured Trumps conspicuous intervention boosting Gallagher and serious prosecutorial misconduct, began, like Lorances, with Gallaghers own platoonmates reporting his conduct. Against Gallaghers denial, two SEALs testified seeing the senior SEAL chief stab the wounded teenager in the neck. Gallagher, along with lower-ranking SEALs, took a photo with the corpse and texted it with the caption good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife. But another SEAL reversed his testimony to say that he, not Gallagher, killed the wounded teenager by closing off an inserted breathing tube. Gallaghers only conviction was for taking the photo and he was released for time served. Trump pardoned Lorance and Golsteyn and reversed Gallaghers demotion in rank.

Opposition to the clemency was reportedly ardent in the senior ranks of the Pentagon and the uniformed military. The Navy opted to proceed with an internal review over stripping Gallagher of his Trident pin, which symbolizes his place in the elite commando ranks. Trump, via tweet, insisted that the Trident board not happen, and publicly clashed with Spencer, his Navy secretary, who took the position that the board ought to proceed despite Trumps tweets.

Yet late on Sunday afternoon, Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that Spencer had made a secret entreaty to Trump that would have rendered the board for show and ensured Gallagher retired at full SEAL rank and pension. Espers account was in such stark opposition to Spencers positions in the case that several in military circles, while acknowledging the murkiness around the entire episode, consider it to be untrue. A Navy Reserve officer who requested anonymity doubted that a true account would emerge from the administration, but said the current messy narrative is not credible.

Esper, in a statement, said he was deeply troubled by Spencer allegedly routing around the defense secretary to take a position the Pentagon conceded was contrary to Spencers public position. That line holds Spencer was fired despite secretly agreeing with Trump on Gallaghers disposition. And Esper also confirmed he will do the exact thing that Trump and, allegedly, Spencer, sought: permitting Gallagher to retire as a Navy chief, and a SEAL. Esper, astonishingly, told reporters Monday that Trump had ordered the defense secretary to ensure Gallagher keeps his Trident, rendering moot the Navys Trident board proceeding.

In irreconcilable contrast to that account, Spencer said in a scorching resignation letter that Trump had jeopardized the rule of law within the military and he could not in good conscience carry out Trumps order to the Navy on Gallagher.

The Constitution, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are the shields that set us apart, and the beacons that protect us all, Spencer wrote. Unfortunately it has become apparent in this respect that I no longer share the same understanding with the Commander in Chief who appointed me, in regards to the key principle of good order and discipline.

Robert Work, a former deputy defense secretary in the Obama and Trump administrations with deep ties to the Navy, said that while he had no first-hand knowledge of the debacle, he believed Spencer.

I take Spencers resignation letter as the truth, Work told The Daily Beast. Its one of those things where well never know the real truth. He continued: I think Spencer just felt he had to do this. Its extremely unfortunate.

Eugene Fidell of Yale Law School, one of the foremost experts in U.S. military justice, cautioned that what exactly occurred remains unclear. But Fidell said it had already done enormous damage to the Navys fidelity to the law.

Esper has committed the very offense he has accused Spencer of having committed, though in Espers telling, it happened behind [Espers] back, Fidell said. If Spencer did this, Spencer is in the wrong. Esper doing this makes Esper in the wrong. Either way, its a body blow to the rule of law in the Department of the Navy.

Esper received a political boost from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, James Inhofe (R-OK), who had clashed with Spencer on other issues. Both Secretary Esper and President Trump deserve to have a leadership team who has their trust and confidence, Inhofe said in a statement.

But in the Democratic-controlled House, the vice chairman of the armed-services committee, Maryland Democrat Anthony Brown, an Iraq veteran, came to Spencers defense. It is a dark day when the president stands with those accused of committing war crimes over a man like Secretary Spencer, Brown said in a statement.

Neither the White House nor Trump campaign spokespeople responded to requests for comment as of press time.

While the war-crimes pardons were not Trumps first in May, he granted clemency to convicted murderer Michael Behenna, an Army lieutenant who in 2008 killed an unarmed, naked Iraqi man during an unauthorized interrogation Trump had fought the Pentagon for more than half a year for the pardons. Promoting them was Pete Hegseth, an Iraq War veteran and a Fox & Friends co-host who had aggressively and personally lobbied Trump since at least March to take such action.

In fact, Lorance, just days after receiving his pardon, appeared on Hegseths Fox News show and effusively lauded Trump, saying, I love you, sir, and telling the president, you are awesome! Days before Spencers firing, Lorance also said on the Fox program that President Trump needed a better team around him, as well as more people watching your back. Gallagher, in a statement tweeted by Hegseth, called Trump a true leader and exactly what the military needs.

Gallaghers attorney Tim Parlatore told The Daily Beast on Monday afternoon that shortly after President Trump called his client to inform him that the rank reinstatement was coming, Gallagher held a conference call with members of his family and Parlatore, to inform them of the news. The lawyer said he then joked on the phone call, Theres no quid pro quo? He didnt ask you to investigate the Bidens?

Gallagher then laughed and replied, No, he just gave it to me! Parlatore recalled, adding that since that phone call, no quid pro quoa clear reference to the impeachment inquiry bedeviling the Trump presidencyhas become a little inside joke between Gallagher and Parlatore.

Yet even Trump allies believe that absolving convicted or accused war criminals of their actions consequences has done substantial damage to the military.

I think more often than not when something like this happens in the administration, a lot of people hyperbolically state that this is undermining our institutions or destroying our democracy, said one ally of the Trump administration who works on military issues. Most of the time it is over-the-top nonsense, but not in this case. This whole thing is a mess and it will undermine good order and discipline in the SEAL community when it is badly needed after a string of incidents involving severe misconduct.

This person added, Pete Hegseth, as a field-grade Army officer, should know what he is doing is wrong, but either doesnt understand the negative repercussions this will have for officers and senior [non-commissioned officers] trying to maintain good order and discipline in their units, or doesnt care. Its shameful and this is truly a black mark on the Trump administrations national-security record.

Editors note: This story has been updated to correct the nature of the photo of Gallagher and the corpse.

See original here:

Trump Tells Allies He Wants Absolved War Criminals to Campaign for Him - The Daily Beast