+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++One of the problems perhaps caused by social media technology is that it allows us to come to quick decisions based on unproven "facts." Obama did this on many occasions but the press never chastised him.
Pelosi obviously jumped the gun and posted the following and then had it erased. If I learned anything in law school it was get the facts first, then draw conclusions. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The insanity over Trump's effort to protect and defend our nation. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Last night I had the distinct pleasure of meeting and picking up Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie at the airport and transporting them to The Landings., where they spoke to an audience of right at 300 people.
I will recap some of what I consider were the highlights. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Europe, it ain't Trump. (See below..)
And:
She has shot across the sky as a new start. Will she burn out? (See 4a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Trump Is Right
If you want a good example of fake news, the hysteria over President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the border is it.
You are being told by a media mob that the president has made himself a dictator, that he is using powers he does not have. Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer called Trump’s decision “lawless.”
Here are the facts:
- Congress has repeatedly granted the president the power to declare national emergencies since 1976.
- The left-wing Brennan Center for Justice has identified 123 statutory powers – that means authority already existing in the law approved by Congress – that the president can exercise under an emergency declaration.
- This power has been used nearly 60 times and by every president since Jimmy Carter, who declared two national emergencies. Reagan declared six. George H. W. Bush four. Clinton seventeen. George W. Bush twelve. Obama thirteen.
- Donald Trump has already used this power three times during his administration. No one freaked out then.
- There are 31 active national emergencies still in effect.
- In 2005, two Democrat governors, Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) and Bill Richardson (D-NM) declared states of emergency at their borders due to surging illegal immigration, crime and violence – the same issues President Trump is citing today.
President Trump has every legal right to issue this emergency declaration.
But, as he conceded during his press conference Friday, there will be a flurry of lawsuits. And he will probably lose in lower left-wing courts still dominated by Obama appointees. I expect the administration to fast-track its appeals to the Supreme Court, where I also expect Trump will prevail, just as he did on the travel ban.
Here’s something to keep in mind: No one questions the president’s authority to send troops to the border. Every president in recent memory has done it. Those troops regularly help build additional fencing to secure the border.
If the president can do that, why can’t he tell them to dig holes and pour concrete?
The Order
There is an emergency at the border. Current apprehensions have surged 84% and are on pace to reach a 10-year record of more 730,000 illegal border crossings this year.
In the past two years, ICE agents arrested more than 260,000 criminal aliens who were responsible for 30,000 sex crimes and 4,000 murders. These crimes, and the untold suffering they caused, never should have happened.
The failure of our politicians to secure the border and protect our citizens is what is truly immoral in this debate, not the wall.
President Trump is right to issue this emergency declaration.
The order Trump signed authorizes the administration to reallocate approximately $8.1 billion from various sources.
- $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
- $2.5 billion from Department of Defense funds for Counterdrug Activities.
- $3.6 billion from Department of Defense military construction projects.
In short, the president is using seized assets from drug cartels and funds already set aside for drug interdiction and military construction projects. There’s no better use of these funds than securing the border to keep drugs and gangs out.
By the way, the left is all in on open borders. But don’t take my word for it.
Beto O'Rourke vows to tear down the El Paso wall. And just on the other side of that wall is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
A False Argument
Now that I knocked down the fake news, I want to address the false argument that many conservatives may fall for, and which some Republican member of Congress are already making. And that is: What about the precedent this emergency declaration will set?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised it yesterday because she knows conservatives are susceptible to arguments about process and the rule of law. Pelosi suggested a future liberal president might declare a national emergency on gun violence.
Others have fretted about a future President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declaring a national emergency to impose her Green New Deal.
That argument is absurd, and we shouldn’t fall for the left’s scare tactics.
As I have already noted, there is no precedent being set here. The authority Trump is using has been used repeatedly by every president since Jimmy Carter. Trump is following precedent.
Moreover, Pelosi is demonstrating her contempt for the Constitution. The president does not have the power to nullify a constitutional right. There is no authority to unilaterally invalidate the Second Amendment.
No American has a right to have a border without a wall. But every American has a right to own a firearm. No American will lose anything because of the president’s emergency declaration. But his order will keep people who should not be here out of the country.
Finally, when the left is in power, it doesn’t care about precedent. Liberals do whatever they have to do to advance their agenda.
When state after state passed laws protecting traditional marriage, the Obama Administration and other left-wing politicians refused to defend those laws. What was the precedent for that?
There was a time in our nation’s history when filibusters against judges and executive appointments were extraordinarily rare. But after George W. Bush was elected, the left broke precedent and abused the filibuster to repeatedly block his judges in order to preserve its grip on the courts.
Later, when it was convenient for Democrats, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke the rules to make it easier to confirm Obama’s judges in order to preserve the left’s grip on the courts.
I am glad Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that he supports the president’s emergency declaration because a few weeks ago he indicated that he would not.
Now I hope McConnell will change his mind again and end the legislative filibuster. Had he done so when President Trump urged him to at any point in the past two years, we would not be in this position today.
Sen. McConnell doesn’t want to change the rules on the legislative filibuster now because, ever the gentleman, he assumes Chuck Schumer will afford him the same courtesy to block legislation the next time Democrats control the White House and the Senate.
Seriously?
Progressives won’t hesitate to fundamentally change the rules the next time they have power and the chance to complete their socialist transformation of America.
We shouldn’t be trying to govern the country with one hand tied behind our back!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) First, Corey and Bossie are true diamond's in the rough and make a great team.
Second, they are tireless and are serving Trump as the outside team from The White House.
Third, during the 40 minute ride, I probed what I consider to be the weaker/distasteful aspects of Trump's personality and how it can hurt him in the 2020 election among other questions and these are their responses:
a) He could not accomplish what he has against all odds unless he was allowed to be himself, warts and all.
b) When it comes to his prospects, if the economy remains favorable and he can up his portion of the black vote to 10% he wins hands down. What is helping him move in that direction is minority employment and, specific to blacks, the Justice Bill just passed that frees those incarcerated unfairly for less than truly criminal acts.
c) As for the economy, they expect the China trade deal will be done and it is good it is taking longer because it will strengthen the economy in 2020. Second, he will not get an entire loaf but China is weakening and that means our bargaining position becomes stronger. Trump, if re-elected, will build upon the loaf he gets and nibble away at more of the loaf in the future. They believe the deal, looking back some 40 years, can prove seminal as was Nixon's trip to China.
d) His name will be on the ticket in 2020 and the losses sustained in the mid year can be reversed because many wins were not by large majorities.
e) The man is more than he is portrayed. No he is not a reader but he grasps quickly and is highly intelligent.
Never having even slept in D.C before being elected he messed up his early cabinet selections because he did not know the right people but he has finally built a solid cabinet. They cited Bolton, Pompeo, Kudlow etc.
As a person, he is generous, fun to be with and not at all as portrayed. Corrie and David are intimate friends and totally loyal. They said 3000 people work in The White House and they would trust about 12.
f) The Democrats are angry, they hate Trump for having beat them and they underestimate him. I asked what happens to the Democrat party if Trump wins. Corrie believes they will double down on their radicalism because they cannot admit to themselves their failed thinking.
It was a pump 'em up type presentation and they do it to perfection. and have facts to back up their assertions.
At the dinner, they dwelt on the treasonous behaviour of the top echelons of The FBI and Dept.of Justice and stated we must have faith in these agencies but it will take a long time to recapture that faith.
Their final message, "enroll voters!!!"
Very interesting opportunity to be with two down to earth, fun to be with guys who are as close to Trump as anyone I happen to know. They are authentic's. They signed their book and added the footnote "drain the swamp."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Europe'sChallenge Is Decline,
Not Trump
Even George Soros warns that the EU may ‘go the way of the Soviet Union in 1991.
By Walter Russell Mead
The greatest mistake Europeans can make is to believe that their biggest problem is Donald Trump.
To be fair, it’s an easy error to make. In the long annals of American diplomacy, there’s no previous instance of an American president treating close allies with anything approaching the Trumpian mix of critique and contempt.
But it’s not only Mr. Trump and his supporters whose attitudes should worry Europe. Some of Europe’s closest friends are also increasingly discouraged.
The American intellectual class once rang with inspired and sometimes envious praise of a rising Europe. In 2002 an influential Atlantic essay argued that the “rising challenger” to American primacy was “not China or the Islamic world but the European Union, an emerging polity that is in the process of marshaling the impressive resources and historical ambitions of Europe’s separate nation-states.” It warned Americans to prepare for the emergence of a new superpower on the world stage.
This is not what Europe’s friends see today. Philanthropist George Soros—one of Europe’s keenest observers and strongest defenders—predicted last week that unless things change, “the European Union will go the way of the Soviet Union in 1991.” He is far from alone among the EU’s supporters in bewailing the bloc’s inability to master its growing difficulties.
Decline, not the Donald, is the specter haunting Europe today. The numbers make this clear. Some readers objected to World Bank data in last week’s column showing that, in dollar terms, the eurozone economy had not recovered from the 2008-09 financial crisis. In euro terms, they point out, eurozone gross domestic product has been growing. But even using the euro-denominated figures issued by the European Central Bank, the growth rate from 2009 to 2017 was only 0.6% per year. That’s anything but robust.
Mr. Trump’s tweets aren’t the reason populists are governing Italy and the gilets jaunesrevolt has shaken Emmanuel Macron’s reform efforts in France. Since the financial crisis, the Italian economy—measured in euros—has been shrinking at an average rate of 0.5% a year, while the French economy has been growing at an average of only 0.8%. Only the gush of cheap energy made possible by American fracking keeps these fragile economies afloat; at an oil price of $125 a barrel, the eurozone—and its banking system—might well face another economic crisis.
Asked about the importance of European unity to the U.S. in January 2017, President-elect Trump told the Times of London: “I never thought it mattered. Look, the EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States in trade, OK? So I don’t really care if it’s separate or together, to me it doesn’t matter.”
But whatever Mr. Trump thinks, European unity matters to U.S. interests. A strong Europe and only a strong Europe can stabilize the region, manage migration and refugee issues in a humane and sustainable way, contain Russia at a reduced cost, and provide the markets that American companies need for growth. On its current course the EU cannot achieve these goals, and the decay or dissolution of the union would only make things worse.
It does not advance U.S. interests for Europe to go the way of the Soviet Union or stay deadlocked in decline. A vibrant Europe whose unity is based on common-sense cooperation and pro-growth economic policies suits America best, but neither the immobilism of Angela Merkel’s Germany nor hostile rhetoric from the White House can bring that about.
Instead of reforming itself, a beleaguered European establishment is circling the wagons against critics at home and abroad. Meanwhile, an American president who would rather have a Diet Coke with Viktor Orban than with Angela Merkel is hurling rhetorical firebombs across the Atlantic. No good will come of this sterile trans-Atlantic feuding, though both Russia and China will be happy to exploit the tensions and cleavages that result.
Europe continues to drift toward irrelevance on the global stage. Josef Joffe, longtime editor and publisher of Die Zeit and one of Europe’s most seasoned and respected diplomatic observers, argues in the February issue of Commentary that the Soros warning may be too late. The grand project of building the EU into a superpower has already imploded: At the level of world politics, “ ‘Europe’ does not exist.”
That lifelong proponents of European values like Messrs. Soros and Joffe increasingly share Mr. Trump’s harsh view of the EU as an irrelevant failure should make even the most headstrong Brussels partisans reflect. Europe is not on a sustainable path; nobody knows this better than those who love and value it most.
4a)
Ocasio-Cortez Heralds a
Political Era
Socialism may not become America’s dominant ideology, but it’s likely to be around for a while.
By Fred Barnes
We’re entering a new political era. The issues are bigger, they’re far outside the mainstream, and they’re reminiscent of an earlier time. And the stakes are higher.
One of the first to recognize this was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “I can pretty safely say this is the first time in my political career that I thought the essence of America was being debated,” he tells me in an interview.
“I never thought we [would be] debating things that were debated in the ’30s, both communism and socialism,” Mr. McConnell says. Those ideologies were “largely discredited at a time when Americans could have found these arguments pretty appealing in the middle of the Great Depression.”
Mr. McConnell thinks socialism ought to be a tough sell today, given the prosperous economy and low unemployment. But maybe not. Polls show socialism has risen in stature, which Mr. McConnell sees as evidence of the new era. Last year, he notes, Gallup found for the first time that Democrats have a more “positive view” of socialism than of capitalism.
Another poll—this one from 2016—showed Democratic primary voters “in every age group, every gender, and every race view socialism favorably.” Among Democrats 45 and under, 45% preferred socialism to 19% for capitalism.
That changed a bit when the pollster offered definitions of socialism and capitalism: 40% of Democrats preferred socialism and 25% picked capitalism. Still, nearly 60% said socialism would have a “positive impact.” The poll of 1,000 Democrats in 2016 was conducted for the American Action Network, a right-of-center organization.
Socialism may not dominate the new era, but neither is it likely to fade. Two things will keep it alive. One is the proliferation of left-of-center ideas that meld easily into socialism. The second is the emergence of New York’s Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the newest Democratic star. She calls herself a “democratic socialist.”
At the top of the Democratic agenda is a campaign to enact enormous tax hikes on the rich. One might think it’s premature to jack up taxes less than 14 months after Republicans passed tax reform. It might be wiser to let it play out first. But Democrats believe the blue wave that swept the 2018 midterm election changed everything. They interpret their capture of the House as a mandate to reverse the nation’s political direction. Though Republicans still control the Senate and White House, Democrats regard them as relics of the past.
As tax raisers, Democrats are not timid. They’re targeting the richest of the rich. Their boldest weapon is Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s unprecedented wealth tax, dubbed the “multimillionaire’s tax.”
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is only a step behind Ms. Warren with her proposal to hit the wealthy by nearly doubling the top income-tax rate, to 70% from 37%. Sen. Bernie Sanders, another self-described socialist, is eager to raise the estate tax’s top rate to 77%.
That’s not all. Not only would health insurance be nationalized as Medicare for All, and everyone forced to give up private health insurance; a vast Green New Deal would propel America in a socialist direction. The Green New Deal has something for everyone on the left. It promises additional billions in welfare, a ban on fossil fuels, and the replacement of air travel with railroads. That’s a partial list.
The Green New Deal is another of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious ideas. She’s been a House member for less than two months. She’s young—29—attractive and self-assured. The media treat her as a major figure, second in the House only to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A measure of her prominence is that she’s already known by her initials, AOC.
If anyone defines the new political era, it’s AOC. One of her charms is that she doesn’t talk like a hardened ideologue. She’s as enthusiastic as a college radical and sounds like one. She’s frank. Asked by NPR if the fight to combat global warming requires “massive government intervention,” AOC replied: “It does. It does, yeah. I have no problem saying that.”
Most Republicans don’t take the Green New Deal seriously. Yet Mr. McConnell has found a way to ridicule it. He said he’d bring it to a vote in the Senate. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the resolution’s chief sponsor in the upper chamber, was furious and accused the Republican leader of trying to kill the bill.
Nor are Republicans anxious about polls that show how popular Democratic tax plans are. Those polls are normal. Americans have long felt the rich pay “too little” in taxes, according to Gallup. A survey earlier this month by Morning Consult found that 61% of Americans either “strongly” or “somewhat” favor Ms. Warren’s plan, which calls for a 2% tax on the assets of those whose net worth is greater than $50 million and another 1% for billionaires.
There’s reason to be skeptical. Neither the Green New Deal nor the tax hikes have faced serious scrutiny. They will once they enter the gauntlet of Congress. A survey by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans back the Green New Deal. Will those numbers hold up? Take a guess.
Republicans don’t have to worry that these proposals will become law. There’s no chance of that with a GOP Senate and Donald Trump in the White House. But the GOP roadblocks may vanish in the 2020 election. Mr. Trump isn’t a shoo-in for re-election, and Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, will be defending 22 seats in 2020 while Democrats defend 12. It’s possible for Democrats to hold the House and win the Senate and presidency. If that happens, the new era that worries Mitch McConnell will be in full swing.
Mr. Barnes was a founder and executive editor of the Weekly Standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment