Obama and Hillary's Middle East Legacy - More War In Our Time! If Your Heart Bleeds You Must Be Superior. Review: "In The Arena."

 Today's climate!
;
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Russia's influence in The Middle East continues to grow as they threaten to become the arms supplier to the region.

This is Obama and Hillary's legacy - The prospect of 'More War in Our Time!' (See 1 below.)

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-exchanged-cia-officers-names-private-server/
===
Conservatives are logical, liberals are emotional.  Does this make liberals more compassionate or stupid?  You decide.

I decided many years ago being logical would not lead to stupidity but it might cause me to become more subject to stupid allegations from stupid people.

Once again my logic proved correct.  Liberals do not understand why I think the way I do but I know why liberals think as they do. They believe they are superior because their hearts bleed. (See 2 below.)
====
Get ready for President Trump according to this analyst. Time will tell. (See 3 below.)
===
Before I begin the first of two reports on "In The Arena" I want to preface with this speech by the owner of the New England Patriots.  Robert Kraft is the personification of what it means to be a good citizen. This video is his commencement speech to the graduates and their families of Yeshiva University.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkAADb09BY&sns=em

Those who know me and read my memos know I threw a birthday party for myself when I turned 65,. It was held on St Johns College's Santa Fe Campus, and those friends who attended spent two days discussing their assigned readings on the topic of "What Make A Good Citizen." Our readings came from Ecclesiastes, Washington's Farewell Address, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Federalist 7 and other readings.

Had I known about Teddy Roosevelt's speech in Paris I would have included it but Pete Hegseth did know about it and updated it in his excellent book : "In The Arena," which I commend to all who care about saving our Republic.

Whenever I attempt a review of a great book, with an even greater message, I know, from the start, I will not do it justice so please accept my apology for this effort and read the book yourself.

The book is divided into 3 Parts and I will review the first two now and the final in a subsequent memo.

The author, unlike progressives, makes no apology for American Exceptional-ism and his book is an attempt to restore the necessity of American citizenship in order for our Republic to survive the damage done by misguided leadership and terrible and wrongheaded liberal/progressive thinking.

The author begins by identifying the 4 key attributes/essentials drawn from Roosevelt's speech: Work ( In order to sustain one's family.), Fight (literally a willingness to die to defend freedom etc.), Children (the critical need to sustain population) and Character.( The necessity of a religious orientation but beyond faith the possession of honor, self-restraint, accepting individual responsibility, common sense and resolve.)

Without a strong citizenry you inevitably will create a weak, debilitated and declining society and republic.

Tolerance must not be allowed to silence conservatism on campuses nor to allow radicals to advance their own form of fanaticism.

Roosevelt did not openly avow France would fall but he did outline for them what they must guard against. Were Roosevelt alive today he could  say the French either did not hear his warnings and/or did not heed them. France is a failing Republic. (See 4 below.)

Hegseth is worried about America's long term viability because our government grows bigger as does our debt, our economy is being strangled by regulations, our education system has been hijacked by intolerant progressives and our military is being gutted from within.

Only a restoration of American values will keep the world from sliding towards collectivism and stagnation.

Hegseth does not believe Obama is a terrible person but does believe his rhetoric sold a vision divorced from what made America great.

He believes we have been seduced by oratory, our inability to grasp same and the intellectual incapacity to push back. Secondly, Hegseth blames the left for engineering a re-examination of America's core tenets, which they do not understand and thus,  have set about distorting.

Roosevelt believed one of the key elements that undermines the bedrock of a republic is when individuals are raised to expect rather than to earn. This mindset creates a social disease incredibly difficult to reverse. Why? Because replacing duties with rights produces a different type of citizen and thus a fundamentally altered society.

The enumerated attributes of character above are important because without them people cannot control themselves and thus become more vulnerable to being controlled by others/from outside etc.

Secondly, progressive thinking fundamentally is detached from human nature and from debasement of moral duty and civic obligations flows a third root cause of our cultural seduction - moral relativism or the replacement of religious traditions of right and wrong by rudderless but aggressive secularism..

Obama rhetoric encourages a subtle shift from duties and obligations to rights and wants and this results in voters being vulnerable to [his] class warfare hype

Duties subsumed by rights, pursuit of utopia, moral relativism and class warfare all erode basic tenets that made our imperfect country man's best hope to achieve and maintain freedom and free markets.

The ideas of the left sound good, particularly when packaged in gilded rhetoric delivered by velvet voices. However, Hegseth/Roosevelt assert they are smokescreens for failed recycled ideas that defy human nature and create class warfare. They do not accord with the ideas that made America great.

You cannot be a good citizen without, first, being a patriot and if you claim to be a global citizen those feelings of internationalism will swamp those of nationalism. To Leftists, patriotism is outdated.  Naked humanity, regardless of flag, freedom or creed is their future and it establishes the basis for elitists' desire to unilaterally disarm themselves in the mistaken belief they can negotiate/coexist with those bent on their/our destruction.

This leads Hegseth into a concise and brilliant discussion of why Obama's Doctrine is incoherent and has allowed the world to spiral out of control.  The author writes while Obama sent a message of engagement the world either did nor receive it and/or interpreted it as weakness.  The radicals responded with power, proving their suspicion/conviction, ie.Obama was naked morally and materially and the gulf between his rhetoric and their reality created voids and opportunities proving, once again, weakness is truly dangerous. Witness ISIS, Russia (Ukraine,) China (South China Sea,) Syria and Iran for starters.

The last two chapters of Part 2, summarize Hegseth's view of three disparate wars. Though, the enemy is basically the same, he argues these wars should not be viewed as such because they are not and thus we are losing in all three.

His view of Obama's co-exist foreign policy, leave at any cost strategy, his lack of resolve and embrace of political expedience and cowardice approach is unmistakable and he describes it all in a devastating manner but  backs up his accusations with facts, logic and lessons drawn from history.

Hegseth again cite's Roosevelt who acknowledged "War is a dreadful thing," but losing is worse.  This is most evident in Iraq where Hegseth said Petraeus'  "Surge " had won and brought a notable and recordable semblance of stability, which Obama threw away.  Hegseth concludes we did not lose the war in Iraq we simply chose not to win  after it had been won.  Thus it has become Obama's legacy of Coexist Left shame.

In the author's view, Iraq had become stable, quasi-democratic and a co-operating and allied with America, Iraq, in the heart of the Arab world, would have been phenomenal and we were on the path to achieving this until Obama unilaterally and purposely withdrew. This fateful and wrong decision has now resulted in a half measured return which also will fail for lack of commitment to win.

In Afghanistan, Hegseth believes the war unwinnable for a variety of reasons , among which are geographical and tribal.  Yet, this is the war Obama said was the right war but, in Hegseth's view, only because Obama used it as a foil for his opposition to G.W's war in Iraq.  Obama was never committed to winning in Afghanistan nor were his J Team of inner-circle advisers  who were never grounded in the knowledge, strategy or reality.  Hegseth refers to Afghanistan as a nation of biblical time with cell phones an AK-47's.

Libya is another disaster proving that leading from behind will not win the day. Supporting a despot opposed to radical Islamists, absent a better solution, trumps the belief a feckless effort by America is preferable.

Hegseth concludes we must be willing to name, know and gauge the radical enemy we face.  We must understand and account for local conditions, cultures and power dynamics and if we seek to win we must outline a clear, honest and feasible long term mission unencumbered by political restraints and finally a Commander In Chief who will stand against the defeatist segment of our society..

He believes we are a nation, mistakes, warts and all, that remains a force for good as is our military and, as with Roosevelt, "there is little place in active life, for the timid good man..."

Hegseth is by Roosevelt's definition and my own  more than a good citizen.  He represents the best of what it has meant to be an American but I fear his is a dying breed.  Post the Viet Nam War, America learned defeat could be managed. The '60's proved and allowed us to learn we could defy authority, that laws were meant to be broken in defiance of confused and bankrupt leadership. This left an indelible mark on our national psyche and, in my humble opinion, allowed the radical left to assume powers that are both dangerous and anathema to our nation's long term health.

During this same period we also made great racial strides through peaceful protests which were met with ugliness much as we are witnessing today when Trump holds rallies that attract radical goons financed by those who seek chaos in the hope this will advance their disruptive and fascistic goals.  I do not see Tea Party Members marauding. (See 4a below.)

I hope to conclude a review of "In The Arena" within the week.
=====

British humour as it used to be: Absolutely politically incorrect.

Two Muslims have crashed a speedboat into the Thames barrier in London . Police think  it might be the start of Ram-a-dam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riots in Birmingham last month caused over 1 million worth of improvements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslims have gone on the rampage in Manchester, killing anyone who's English.  Police fear the death toll could be as high as 8 or 9.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago it was suggested that, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." But, since all the doctors are now Muslim, I've found that a bacon sandwich works great!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police in London have found a bomb outside a mosque...  They've told the public not to panic as they've managed to push it inside.  
============================================ 
Jamaican minorities in the UK have complained that there are not enough television shows with minorities in mind, so Crime Watch is being shown 5 times a week now.  
============================================= 
I was reading in the paper today about this dwarf that got pick pocketed. 
How could anyone stoop so low. 
=============================================

I was walking down the road when I saw an Afghan bloke standing on a fifth floor balcony, shaking a carpet. I shouted up to him, "What's up Abdul, won't it start?"  

+++

 Dick

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Will Russian arms soon start flowing to Libya?

By Yury Barmin

Russian Ambassador to Libya Ivan Molotkov recently said that Moscow would be ready to supply the legitimate Libyan government with weapons as soon as the arms embargo against the country is lifted. The statement came after the US-chaired summit in Vienna had agreed to consider a request from the internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Libya to be exempted from a UN arms embargo. The country’s unity government has been calling for international backers to speed up the re-arming of its forces ever since it came to power in January 2016. However, with 31 of its fighters recently killed by the Islamic State (IS), which is growing stronger on Libyan soil by the day, the request seems especially urgent.

Moscow reports that it's ready with military aid for Libya's unity government as soon as the arms embargo is lifted, but Tripoli must include Gen. Khalifa Hifter and the Libyan National Army in the political process for that to happen.

Molotkov is not the first Russian diplomat to hint at possible military aid for the Libyan government. In February 2015, Vladimir Churkin, the head of Russia’s mission to the UN, told journalists that Moscow was considering backing the official government in Tobruk with weapons and if necessary imposing a naval blockade on Libya to prevent the delivery of weapons to jihadists by sea. Since the five-year arms embargo that was upheld by the UN Security Council last year is still in place, it is not entirely clear how serious the Kremlin is about propping the emergent government in Tripoli up with military equipment. After all, it seems that Moscow is too invested in Syria at the moment, and its involvement in a conflict elsewhere in the Middle East could erode its efforts to support President Bashar al-Assad.

That is not to say, however, that Russia is unable to provide weapons to Libya. Just before the fall of Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, Moscow was reported to have signed between $4 billion and $10 billion in arms deals with Tripoli. The revolution that followed had the new government review these deals, but due to the UN-imposed embargo contracts with Moscow they were suspended. In 2008 the Kremlin canceled $4.5 billion of Libyan debt in exchange for Gadhafi signing multi-billion-dollar contracts with Russian defense procurers. While Moscow fulfilled its part of the deal, Tripoli is yet to purchase the weapons.

With the first major Libyan-Soviet arms deal signed in 1974, the Libyan National Army almost entirely relies on Soviet-produced weapons and hardware. Between 1973 and 1992 over 11,000 Soviet troops were stationed in the country advising the government on defense and security and, according to some accounts, directly participating in several conflicts alongside Libyan forces. As per Soviet defense instructors in Libya, over 80% of local servicemen had no prior military training, which resulted in almost all senior Libyan command being trained in Soviet Union. The same happened between 2004 and 2011. As a result of this process, the Libyan National Army today almost entirely relies on Soviet training and weapons, making Russia an ideal candidate to prepare the army for a fight against IS.

Without proper maintenance Libyan arms have considerably degraded, often to a critical level, especially its military aircraft. Just recently a MiG-21 crashed in Tobruk, where the Libyan National Army is headquartered. This is only the latest in a string of accidents involving Soviet MiG jets, the powerhouse of what remains of Libya's air force. The fear of jihadists infiltrating Egypt from Libya has allegedly led Cairo to donate secondhand jets and helicopters, but recent accidents suggest they will not last long.

It is not the existing embargo that prevents Moscow from supporting the Libyans militarily so much as the disagreements between the ruling groups. With the power-sharing agreement brokered in Libya in December 2015 and the arrival of the GNA to Tripoli, the authorities in Tobruk formerly recognized by the international community as the official government lost their power. The Libyan National Army headed by Gen. Khalifa Hifter (who, predictably, received his military training in the Soviet Union) stayed in Tobruk and refused to support the GNA and the Presidential Council. The legitimate legislative authority in Libya, the House of Representatives, is also based in Tobruk, and until it gives the new government a vote of confidence, the GNA cannot be considered legitimate. Consequently, Libya’s governing institutions have split between two cities, and while the GNA in the capital is struggling to maintain control of the city, Hifter’s army in Tobruk remains the only potent force in the country.

The dilemma posed before the international community is who is going to receive all the arms when and if the embargo is lifted, the GNA or Hifter? Arming the newly created Presidential Guard under the GNA, whose militias have no clear chain of command, means that the weapons may end up in the wrong hands or, even worse, give it a false sense of military might and spark a confrontation with the army. Arming the Libyan National Army would essentially mean that the Government of National Accord with whom Hifter is at odds is redundant.

According to Russian diplomats, the Kremlin fully supports the process of the unification of the country and the formation of the Government of National Accord. Yet after his meeting with the chair of the African Union Commission, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told journalists that the GNA is not legitimate without the approval of Tobruk’s House of Representatives. Lavrov also said that it was Moscow that insisted on the inclusiveness of the Libyan agreement in the first place, advocating for the participation of all parties. The message that the foreign minister was trying to send is that unless Tripoli includes Hifter and the Libyan National Army in the political process, Russia will resist the lifting of the international embargo against Libya.

Considering Hifter’s extensive military background and Soviet training, he may in fact be a perfect Russian ally in Libya. His secularist vision of the country’s political process also hugely appeals to Moscow, which is suspicious of any political force that comes with religious slogans. Russia is not alone in supporting this controversial character, who is also backed by the UAE and Egypt.

In October 2015, Hifter was unusually explicit about the level of support that he enjoys in Moscow. Talking to the Libyan National Army, he said that Russia has promised him assistance in fighting terrorism and strengthening the army. These statements might not be groundless, considering that Hifter is a regular guest in Moscow and in Cairo, where he has reportedly met with Russian diplomats on several occasions. Moreover, the head of Tobruk’s House of Representatives, an ally of Hifter's, sent his representative to Moscow last year to bolster military relations with Russia. More recently, Russian media outlets reported that following Hifter’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin’s Mideast envoy in Cairo, his visit to Moscow is currently being planned by the Foreign Ministry. A member of the Russian Parliament’s Commission on International Affairs confirmed to journalists that Moscow is in fact in close contact with the chief of the Libyan National Army.

According to some analysts, Russia is already providing arms to the Libyan National Army via a network of middlemen, bypassing the embargo regime, meaning that Moscow may have already made its bid in the Libyan reconciliation process. Despite this move, the Kremlin understands that without Hifter — its most likely ally — joining the UN-backed political process, his international support will be extremely limited. And with the international focus shifting from Tobruk to Tripoli, his career is likely to be short-lived.

Yury Barmin, an analyst of Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, is a MENA expert at the Russian International Affairs Council. Yury holds a master's degree in international relations from the University of Cambridge.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)Why Liberals Are So Obsessed With Racism, Homosexuality and Transsexualism

By John Hawkins

Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion. Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel. Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe they’re best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions. 

Once you understand those basics, it’s very easy to see why both sides hold the positions they do on most issues and to comprehend why there’s so little middle ground. Once you get the mentalities, you can predict where each side will come down on issues.

An extremely expensive program designed to help disadvantaged minority children read better that has been proven not to work? Liberals will support it and conservatives will oppose.

A program that cuts the deficit by cutting people off the welfare and disability rolls who don’t belong there in the first place? Conservatives will support it and liberals will oppose.

A program called “Puppies for Orphans” that hands out “therapy dogs” to poor children at $100,000 per year in cost? Liberals will support it and conservatives will oppose.

The problem with all of this is that most of what passes for “compassion” with liberals isn’t real compassion. There’s a cost to real compassion and thus, a limit to it. For example, let’s say Bill Gates makes $10 billion this year and gives away $500 million. Meanwhile, a middle class accountant makes $50,000 and gives away $5,000. We could argue about who’s more compassionate. After all Bill Gates gives away more, but the accountant gives away a bigger percentage of his income. Furthermore, there are limits to what both men can and should do. If Gates gives away so much money that Microsoft goes out of business and the accountant gives away so much money he loses his home, we’d consider them to be fools. Compassionate fools, but fools. This creates limits on what truly compassionate people can do. Many people talk about compassion, but only a few are going to go work overseas like Mother Teresa, consistently give 10% of their income to charity, or adopt orphaned boys. 

On the other hand, 99 times out of 100, liberals’ “compassion” is nothing more than “virtue signaling.” They’re offering to take your money and give it to someone else. They’re offering to take rights away from other people that they don’t care about. They’re saying people are racist, bigoted, sexist or homophobic for disagreeing with them. It’s cost-free for someone to talk about how much he hates racism because racism is almost universally despised in America.

There is no price to be paid for attacking a zoo that made the difficult decision to shoot a gorilla because a boy had fallen into his pen. If you’re not a Christian and have no moral qualms about gay marriage, it’s easy to call for the law to crack down on bakers or wedding photographers who refuse to participate because they find it morally repulsive. The problem with all this pointless virtue signaling is that because there is no real cost to it, there are no limits to it. As long as liberals lose nothing by advocating a position, but get credit for being compassionate for taking it, why not go for it? 

This creates a situation where people have to keep on upping the ante to stand out. If racism is almost universally despised, how do you get credit for being more sensitive about race than other people? You find new things to call racist. Eventually, when liberals moved beyond parody when it came to race issues, they showed they were compassionate by obsessing over the 3% of the American population that’s gay. Then from there, they became maniacally focused on the .3% of the population (if that) that claims to be transgender. 

If every single thing on the liberal wish list for minorities, gays and transgenders were to happen tomorrow, a new list of demands or some new series of pet groups that need to be protected would spring up almost instantaneously. That’s because it’s not about the specifics; it’s about an arms race between liberals trying to signal their virtue by being willing to go further than other people in being conspicuously compassionate while getting in some cheap shots on their political opponents at the same time. 

The problem with this is that compassion, real or fake, has little to do with what makes a society successful. Capitalism is not warm and fuzzy. Contrary to what some people seem to believe, diversity and sensitivity to women’s issues are not what makes a military successful. In fact, the most effective policies are often not very forgiving or compassionate. So, when you have a large block of the country that completely abandons what works for whatever makes liberals feel good and look more “compassionate,” it creates enormous amounts of dysfunction.

It’s like picking which car you’re going to drive in a race because of the paint job. A paint job isn’t irrelevant, but it’s also not going to win the race for you. Unfortunately, people with this mindset are only able to figure out that they’re doing something wrong after the car crashes and the whole country is along for the ride.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3) 

Why Trump will win the White House

Although some prominent Republican leaders have withheld their support for Donald Trump, it’s clear that the GOP rank-and-file are rallying to the presumptive nominee. 

Steve Helber The  Associated Press

BY BEN BOYCHUK

Special to The Bee

Donald Trump will win the 2016 presidential election.

Not “might” win. Not “could win under the following circumstances.” He’s going to win as surely as the sun rises in the east, as certainly as high tide follows low, and as definitively as Steph Curry laid waste to the Oklahoma Thunder’s defense.

Ben Boychuk Randy 

What am I, clairvoyant? Of course not. Just as it’s wise to never say “never” – except maybe #NeverTrump – it’s never a good idea for somebody to make unqualified predictions in print about unknowable future events.

Bold claims had better be backed by solid reasons. Although Trump is running nearly even with Hillary Clinton in national polls, the Vegas bookmakers remain optimistic about Clinton’s chances. The online betting site PaddyPower.com currently puts the odds of Clinton winning at 1 in 2, with Trump at 7 to 4. Bernie Sanders is a 20-to-1 long shot.

Would I be willing to put my money where my mouth is? Don’t be ridiculous. Gambling is a sin! But I wouldn’t bet against a Trump victory.

Here are five reasons why:

His rhetoric resonates. (Even as it appalls.)

Everyone knows that Trump is an outrage machine. What few people appreciate is that Trump is a well-calibrated outrage machine. He has fastened on to issues that other candidates couldn’t discuss without sounding like pandering flip-floppers.

Trump has departed from Republican orthodoxy on health care, taxes, free trade and immigration. Often he seems to contradict himself. He has said everything is negotiable – especially the outrageous things he’s said.

Will he build a wall on the southern U.S. border and make Mexico pay for it? Maybe, maybe not. But he’s opened up the discussion like no one has before.

“TRUMP’S SELECTION OF ISSUES IS PART OF HIS PERSUASION TALENTS,” WRITES SCOTT ADAMS, THE CREATOR OF “DILBERT” WHO HAS BEEN BLOGGING FOR MONTHS ABOUT THE TRUMP PHENOMENON. “HE WAS SMART ENOUGH TO PICK THE TOPICS WITH THE MOST EMOTIONAL POWER. IT WAS INTENTIONAL.”

“Keep in mind,” Adams adds, “that every candidate had the same options that Trump did, but only Trump chose correctly.” Adams says that is no accident: “The public just thinks it is.”

By the way, Adams thinks Trump will win “in a landslide.”

Most Republicans are falling in line.

I’m a die-hard #NeverTrump guy, but I know I’m among a minority. Although some prominent Republican leaders have withheld their support, it’s clear that the GOP rank-and-file is rallying to the presumptive nominee. On Thursday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., ended weeks of speculation and endorsed Trump, saying “the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.” A unified Republican Party is far more likely now.

Democrats, meantime, are divided among dedicated Clinton supporters and Sanders’ cadres of bitter-enders. The Bernie voters tend to be millennials. Clinton may not be able to count on their support in November.

Gotcha journalism doesn’t faze Trump.

Oh, that Trump is such a thin-skinned baby! Did you see his “epic meltdown” during his news conference at Trump Tower last week? He kept berating the reporters for not doing their jobs. What a buffoon!

At least, that’s what The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the crew on “Morning Joe” said.

What my friends in the media fail to understand is the great mass of would-be readers and viewers really, really don’t like us. They certainly don’t trust us. And so when Trump calls ABC News reporter Tom Llamas “a sleaze” and Llamas responds with pained indignation, who do you suppose wins that confrontation?

“Why am I a sleaze?” Llamas protested.

“You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well,” Trump replied.

Trump never apologizes and never backs down. The media may despise him, but voters despise the media more. That’s why he’s winning.

Hillary follows his lead – badly.

Trump has run a non-traditional campaign and defied all expectations and expert predictions so far. Meantime, Clinton has rebooted her campaign four or five times since April.

Clinton doesn’t know how to respond to Trump. The campaign is peddling the catchphrase, “Love Trumps Hate.” But as Adams points out, that’s a terrible slogan. “Humans put greater cognitive weight on the first part of a sentence than the last part,” he writes. “This is a well-understood phenomenon. And the first part literally pairs LOVE and TRUMP.”

That’s hardly her first misstep. In December, Clinton took a swipe at Trump’s “penchant for sexism” around the same time she announced that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, would be campaigning for her in New Hampshire.

Trump slapped back. Hard. “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!” Trump tweeted. Clinton had no answer for that. And she won’t have an answer for it when it comes time to debate.

Trump will crush Clinton in the debates.

People watched with a mixture of horror and amusement as Trump took apart his opponents during the Republican debates. Ted Cruz was supposed to be a debate champion in college. He couldn’t withstand Trump’s assaults. All Trump needed to do was repeat the nickname “Lyin’ Ted” over and over again until it stuck.

A few months ago, Trump started referring to Clinton as “Crooked Hillary.” He’s preparing the rhetorical battle space.

Also, Clinton is not a very good debater. People forget the way Barack Obama eviscerated her during the 2008 Democratic primaries. She does not do well in situations where she doesn’t have complete control. It’s why she prefers interviews to news conferences. Interviews are more predictable. Press conferences are free-for-alls.

We’re a long way from the Lincoln-Douglas era, when people would sit and listen for hours to closely argued speeches. Trump is a master of the emotional appeal. He’s shown he has no compunction about attacking Clinton and her husband on their moral and ethical lapses, even as he’s fighting lawsuits accusing him of fraud and dodging questions about his past infidelities and current net worth.

In a contest between two shameless politicians, the one with the least shame wins. Get ready for President Trump.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)

PARIS BECOMES MASSIVE CAMP FOR ILLEGAL MIGRANTS

By Soeren Kern

• The National Front party has accused Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo of putting the concerns of migrants ahead of those of French citizens. In a statement, the party said that the number of homeless people in Paris had increased by 84% between 2002 and 2012, but that Hidalgo has shown little interest in alleviating the problem.
• Although the EU-Turkey migrant deal has temporarily stemmed the flow of illegal migration to Greece through Turkey, hundreds of thousands of migrants are still making their way into Europe.
• According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 204,000 migrants arrived in Europe (mostly through Greece and Italy) during the first five months of 2016, more than twice as many as arrived during the same period in 2015.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has announced plans to build a “humanitarian camp” next to one of the busiest train stations in the city, so that thousands of illegal migrants bound for Britain can “live with dignity.”

Hidalgo, who has often sparred with French President François Hollande for his refusal to accept more migrants, says her plan to help illegal migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East is a “duty of humanism.”

Critics counter that Hidalgo's plan is a cynical ploy aimed at positioning herself to the left of the current president, as part of a political strategy to wrest leadership of the Socialist Party from Hollande, whose approval ratings are at record lows.

At a press conference on May 31, Hidalgo said the camp would be built in northern Paris “near the arrival points for migrants.” She was referring to Gare du Nord — one of the busiest railway stations in Europe — from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London.

Thousands of illegal migrants, many from Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan, have gathered at a nearby public park, the Jardins d'Eole, and turned the area into a massive squatter camp where conditions are squalid. The area, which is so dangerous that the government has classified it as a no-go zone (Zone de sécurité prioritaires, ZSP), has become a magnet for human traffickers who charge migrants thousands of euros for fake travel documents, for passage to London.

Hidalgo said her new camp, which will be built within six weeks, would be modelled on Grande-Synthe, a massive migrant camp near the French port city of Dunkirk.

Grande-Synthe, which is home to more than 2,500 illegal migrants hoping to reach Britain, was opened in February 2016 after French authorities destroyed a makeshift camp in nearby Calais known as the “Jungle,” from where thousands of migrants tried to break into the Channel Tunnel in a bid to reach London.

The upkeep of Grande-Synthe will cost French taxpayers €4 million ($4.5 million) this year, in addition to a stipend of €10 euros a day for every migrant at the camp. French taxpayers presumably will also be paying for Hidalgo's camp in Paris.

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo has announced plans to build a camp for thousands of illegal migrants in central Paris, which is to be modelled on Grande-Synthe (pictured above), a camp housing 2,500 illegal migrants near the French port city of Dunkirk. (Image source: AFP video screenshot)

Hidalgo, who has threatened to file a lawsuit against the American media outlet Fox News for reporting about Muslim no-go zones in Paris, seems to have no qualms about turning parts of northern Paris into ghettos for illegal migrants. “Paris will not avoid taking responsibility while the Mediterranean becomes a graveyard for refugees,” she said. “I do not want to look at myself in the mirror in 10 or 15 years and say: 'You were mayor of Paris and you are guilty of not helping people in danger.'”

Hidalgo added that “Europe and France are not living up to their history when they fail to treat outsiders with dignity.”

Hidalgo's project has been welcomed by some, including pro-migration charity groups, and has infuriated others, such as French Housing Minister Emmanuelle Cosse. She said there already are enough refugee shelters in Paris and that Hidalgo's announcement would only serve to draw more illegal migrants to the city.

In an interview with Europe 1 radio, Cosse said that “migrant camps are not the solution” because they amount to the establishment of migrant ghettos where integration becomes impossible. Cosse said that more than 1,000 additional illegal migrants had arrived at the Jardins d'Eole in the week since Hidalgo's press conference, bringing the total number of migrants there to 2,300.

A political analysis by the center-right Le Figaro postulates that Hidalgo's plan for a migrant camp is just the latest in a series of provocations in which she is attempting to establish her left-wing credentials as part of a strategy to win leadership of the Socialist Party. The report says she believes President Hollande will lose his bid for reelection in 2017, and that his defeat will pave the way for a leadership battle between Hidalgo and French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. According to Le Figaro, Hidalgo is determined to become the Socialist Party candidate for President of France in 2022.

A report by the French public radio channel France Inter describes the rivalry between Hidalgo and Valls as “war unto death.”

Hidalgo's quest to become the first female president of France may be derailed by the head of the anti-immigration National Front party, Marine Le Pen, who is now one of the most popular politicians in France.

According to an opinion poll published by Le Monde on June 1, 28% of those surveyed said they would vote for Le Pen in 2017, compared to 21% for former president Nicolas Sarkozy and 14% for Hollande. The poll also shows that on a scale of 1 to 10, Hollande's approval rating is at 2.1.

The National Front party has accused Hidalgo of putting the concerns of migrants ahead of those of French citizens. In a statement, the party said that the number of homeless people in Paris had increased by 84% between 2002 and 2012, but that Hidalgo has shown little interest in alleviating the problem:

“It is absolutely scandalous that Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo uses taxpayer money to house illegal migrants. Migrants should not be housed in hotels or in modular homes within migrant camps. They should be in detention camps waiting to be taken back to their country of origin.

“Anne Hidalgo's project is characteristic of a political class that is more concerned with migrants than citizens, a political class that has forgotten that the main role of leaders is to care above all for their own people first.”

Meanwhile, efforts by French police to tear down makeshift migrant camps have become like a game of whack-a-mole. More than 20 camps have been dismantled in Paris over the past 12 months, but each time they are rebuilt within weeks.

On May 2, police cleared a makeshift migrant camp under the Stalingrad Metro station (near Gare du Nord) after thousands of migrants brandishing metal poles and wooden planks engaged in a mass brawl on April 14. (A four-minute YouTube video of the melee can be viewed here.) The camp had previously been cleared on March 30.

Although the EU-Turkey migrant deal has temporarily stemmed the flow of illegal migration to Greece through Turkey, hundreds of thousands of migrants are still making their way into Europe.

According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 204,000 migrants arrived in Europe (mostly Greece and Italy) during the first five months of 2016, more than twice as many as arrived during the same period in 2015.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

4a)

Anti-Trump rallies funded by the left

The anti-Trump riots are planned and funded by the left

A Trump supporter attacked and egged by anti-Trump rioters after a Trump rally in San Jose, Calif. (Associated Press) more >

By Tammy Bruce - 

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

From Chicago to Albuquerque to San Diego, and now last week’s obscene riot in San Jose, California, Americans and the world saw supporters of the liberal agenda violently target Trump supporters, peacefully trying to attend a rally, as though they were prey.

Make no mistake — these supposed anti-Trump riots are not organic nor are they natural; they are the result of leftist organizing using paid stooges. Fox News reported in March a Craigslist ad posted by Bernie Sanders supporters offering $15 an hour to protest at a Trump rally in Wisconsin. They would also provide shuttle bus transport, parking if you needed it and ready-made signs.

Yeah, not organized at all. Just natural, upset citizens who are so passionate about the situation they just can’t help themselves. And if you believe that, I have a YouTube video for you that caused a bunch of passersby in Benghazi to riot, too.

When confronted with the fact that the organizers of these melees are Bernie Sanders supporters, and representatives from Democrat-allied groups, like La Raza and MoveOn.org, the Democratic party establishment denies, denies, denies. They then condemn the violence with one hand, while their allies perpetuate it.

So let’s have a few facts about who has been organizing this from the beginning, shall we?

In March, Kelly Riddell of this newspaper reported the leftist agitating group MoveOn.org, which has endorsed Bernie Sanders and is funded by Hillary supporter George Soros, sent out a fundraising email after liberal agitators managed to shut down a Trump rally in Chicago. In their email to supporters MoveOn.org highlighted the support they provided those agitators:

  “We’ve been ramping up our efforts for months… to the support we provided students in Chicago last night by printing signs and a banner and recruiting MoveOn.org members to join their peaceful protest,” the MoveOn.org email continued, “We need to double-down in the face of direct attacks on our community,” reported Ms. Riddell.

The problem, of course, was the so-called protest in Chicago, like the one in San Jose, was anything but peaceful. Mr. Trump cancelled that event because of the unfolding violence against his supporters even prior to the rally’s start. No doubt the irony of that is lost on MoveOn.org.

The email confession continued:

“And to keep it going, we’re counting on you to donate whatever you can to cover the costs of everything involved — the organizers, signs, online recruitment ads, training, and more.” (Emphasis mine).

Also playing a prominent role in the anti-Trump Chicago protest, obviously expanding into a national effort, was the Democratic Socialists of America, a group with which Bernie Sanders has been involved.

Breitbart reports additional groups involved in these political astro-turf events include professional liberal and leftist agitator groups Black Lives Matter Chicago, MoveOn.org, La Raza Chicago, International ANSWER Chicago, SEIU Local 73, The Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and more.

Then there’s Hillary’s direct connection to a ‘spontaneous’ anti-Trump protest. Writing about a veteran’s protest against Mr. Trump, the Daily Beast reported last month:

“It seemed like an outpouring of veteran anger against Donald Trump: over a dozen former service members protesting outside Trump Tower. But the reality was more complicated. The protest was actually a coordinated effort, led in part by the Hillary Clinton campaign… It only looked like a grassroots demonstration…”

At first everyone lied about the fact that it was Hillary astro-turf protestors, but then it all fell apart. “A spokesman for the demonstrators insisted they had no affiliation with any campaign. Later he said the protesters had reached out to the Clinton campaign for press contacts, but that’s all. Then the activist finally admitted that, yes, the Clinton campaign had helped organize the protest,” reported the Daily Beast

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rea