The Front Page Cover
2016 The turth is the gold of today
Featuring:
Will the New Year’s
Tumult Trump the Old?
Peggy Noonan.
~~~
.
Hilly calls for taxpayer funding of abortions - At a Planned Parenthood endorsement rally for Hilly Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee called for an end to the 40-year-old ban on taxpayer funds for abortion. The so-called Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, is the long-standing compromise between pro-life and pro-choice lawmakers that restricts federally funded abortion cases only to those of rape, incest and life of the mother. Over time, this has grown to include government health programs like Medicaid and nObamacare. At the rally, Clinton said she believes Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, should be “fully funded” citing that the measure discriminates against low-income women. The group took in over $500 million from taxpayers in 2014 for non-abortion activities. -Fox News
.
KOCH GROUP UNVEILS nOBAMACARE RATE TRACKER
Freedom Partners is releasing a 2016 nObamacare Premium Increase Tracker today, ahead of President nObama’s State of the Union speech. The tracker shows the average health care premium increases in each state on the individual marketplace for 2016. Freedom Partners’ policy team calculates that premiums on the individual marketplace increased in 49 out of 50 states. In most states, costs went up by double-digits. Seventeen states will see premium increases of 20 percent of more, the group says. -Fox News
Freedom Partners is releasing a 2016 nObamacare Premium Increase Tracker today, ahead of President nObama’s State of the Union speech. The tracker shows the average health care premium increases in each state on the individual marketplace for 2016. Freedom Partners’ policy team calculates that premiums on the individual marketplace increased in 49 out of 50 states. In most states, costs went up by double-digits. Seventeen states will see premium increases of 20 percent of more, the group says. -Fox News
.
Ghosts of SOTU, Past and Present In January 2009, Hope 'n' Change™ was still fresh, and Democrats and many Americans were looking forward to a new start and a real recovery from a tough recession. As Barack nObama prepares to deliver his final State of the Union Address tonight, however, the shine is tarnished, and he has no one to blame but himself. Looking back to his first address to Congress in 2009, nObama said things that would make us laugh out loud if they weren't so serious. He renewed his call for a "recovery plan" (a.k.a. the $800 billion "stimulus") though he insisted it was "not because I believe in bigger government — I don't" and "not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited — I am." He also declared we have a "responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to [our children] a debt they cannot pay." When nObama gave that speech, total national debt was $10.8 trillion. It's quickly approaching $19 trillion. So he was mindful, alright — as he whipped out the nation's credit card to pay for redistribution to Democrats' favored constituency groups, thereby setting a new minimum level of spending that would be very hard to cut. He'll come very close to doubling our national debt over his (insufferably long) eight years.
In terms of his other numerous initiatives and promises, he delivered on nObamaCare (though it was built on a foundation of lies and is not at all the success he claims), climate change regulations (via the EPA, not Congress), withdrawing from Iraq (we all know how that turned out), homosexuals serving openly in the military, raising taxes on the top two income brackets, and a handful of other things that grew government, increased debt or advanced leftist social engineering. Fortunately, however, Republican wins in 2010 and 2014 slowed his progress. Intentionally declining to tackle immigration reform with Democrat congressional majorities, nObama eventually made a show of executive action and decreased enforcement to keep the issue as a political wedge. But he did not succeed in achieving his idea of reform. Likewise, he has failed to do anything really meaningful to restrict gun rights, and he managed to become Gun Salesman of the Decade. The extent to which he was able to raise taxes was limited, as was the trajectory of federal spending. His current boasts of cutting the deficit are both disingenuous and empty — he nearly quadrupled it first, and it's only falling because Republicans blocked many further increases.
So tonight we can expect a typically petulant man to take aim at his opponents, painting them in the worst possible light as he blames them for his failures. On the bright side, it's his last State of the Union.
-The Patriot Post
.
.
Fatah Airs Video Urging Killing Israelis
By Any Means
investigativeproject
.
.
GOP Congress critters would rather
watch the USA die than...
> Sher Zieve.
{renewamerica.com} ~ With ongoing acts of patent lunacy – or the darker reason... collaboration – the Republican-controlled US Congress refuses to remove the cancer eating away at Washington D.C. just as the Democrats have done for decades... Instead, the aforementioned Congress seems to prefer the ultimate demise-for-lack-of-proper-care that will soon be the cause of death. One of the primary reasons used as an excuse is the now cliché false fear of being called a "racist" if they oppose the country's enslavement of its citizens with replacement of illegal ones and totalitarian leftist policies. Note...at some point almost all politicians become leftists in order to enrich themselves and they begin to view their constituencies as "the great unwashed masses" who are beneath them. They, then, begin to use any inane excuse to draw curious eyes away from what they're really doing. And, at some point it no longer matters on which side they pretend to be...because it's the side that solely enriches them..
American charged
with supporting Shabaab,
serving in ‘specialized fighting force’
THOMAS JOSCELYN
.
{longwarjournal.org} ~ The Department of Justice has announced that Maalik Alim Jones, a 31 year-old American citizen from Maryland, has been indicted for allegedly supporting Shabaab, al Qaeda’s official branch in East Africa... Jones appeared before a judge in the Southern District of New York last month, but the DOJ released the indictment and complaint in his case earlier today. Jones allegedly traveled from New York to Kenya in July 2011. Once in Kenya, according to the DOJ’s announcement, he traveled by land to Somalia, “where he trained, worked and fought with al Shabaab in Somalia.” Jones “received military training at an al Shabaab training camp,” learning “to operate an AK-47 assault rifle and rocket-propelled grenades.” He also purportedly jointed Shabaab’s “specialized fighting force, Jaysh Ayman, and participated in combat against soldiers of the Kenyan government.”.
Iran Kidnaps 10 U.S. Sailors
and Two U.S. Military Boats in Persian Gulf….
theconservativetreehouse
.
.
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ So Much for nObama’s appeasement approach toward Iran. Two small U.S. naval vessels containing 10 U.S. Military service members were traveling from Kuwait to Bahrain in the Persian Gulf... The U.S. Navy lost contact with the vessels after the Iranian Navy intercepted the two boats and detained the sailors.
UPDATE:
AP Has Outline – […] Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told The Associated Press that the riverine boats were moving between Kuwait and Bahrain when the U.S. lost contact with them. U.S. officials said that the incident happened near Farsi Island, situated in the Persian Gulf. They said that some type of mechanical trouble with one of the boats caused them to run aground and they were picked up by Iran. The sailors were in Iranian custody on Farsi Island at least for some time, but it’s not certain where they are now. The semi-official Iranian news agency, FARS, said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s navy has detained 10 foreign forces, believed to be Americans, and said the sailors were trespassing in Iranian waters. Sailors are back home now.
.
UN “Green” Agenda vs. the Constitution
Larry Greenley
.
.
Hilly: White Terrorism, Police Violence
as Big a Threat as ISIS
Sarah Fisher
.
.
{truthrevolt.org} ~ Hilly appeared at the Brown and Black Forum in Iowa on Monday and equivocated between the threats of "white terrorism" and "police violence" with the radical Islamic group ISIS... The moderator asked Clinton, “Personally, I know many minorities who are much more concerned with racist attacks at the local level than radical Islamists. So, question to put it plainly since often issues of race are tiptoed, do you believe that white terrorisms and extremism is as much a threat to some in this country as something like ISIS?” Hilly responded, “I think we have all kinds of threats in our country, and I wouldn’t discount any of them. I think we have to take them all seriously. And many of those threats are fueled by the gun violence that we face every single day…,” she said. What she said carries no weight with me and a lot of others..
Sheriff Clarke Weighs in as
nObama Replenishes the Supply of Terrorists
S. Noble
.
Haji Hamidullah
..
Chemical Weapons Threat from
ISIS Could Easily Hit Disney World,
Malls, the Academy Awards
S. Noble
.
.
New ISIS Handbook Provides
Chilling Instructions to Homegrown Terrorists
S. Noble
.
.
Panel to HASC: ISIS Militants
Will Be Difficult to Totally Defeat
John Grady
.
.
.
Will the New Year’s
Tumult Trump the Old?
Peggy Noonan.
.
We are going to learn a lot pretty quickly.
We are going to learn a lot pretty quickly.
.
In the next few months we’ll find out who emerges as the not-Trump, or not-Trumps. We’ll see a battle. If it is not resolved we’ll have a clearer sense of whether this thing is going to go to the floor of the convention in Cleveland in July. In Washington, what we sloppily but handily call the GOP establishment refers to this possibility as a “brokered convention.” They do this because they think they’ll be the brokers. Will they? Or will they be combatants? If it gets to the floor the correct term will be “open convention,” in the Katie-bar-the-door sense of wild and woolly.
In the next few months we’ll find out who emerges as the not-Trump, or not-Trumps. We’ll see a battle. If it is not resolved we’ll have a clearer sense of whether this thing is going to go to the floor of the convention in Cleveland in July. In Washington, what we sloppily but handily call the GOP establishment refers to this possibility as a “brokered convention.” They do this because they think they’ll be the brokers. Will they? Or will they be combatants? If it gets to the floor the correct term will be “open convention,” in the Katie-bar-the-door sense of wild and woolly.
.
If at some point Mr. Trump appears to be on a sure glide path to the nomination, will the party establishment begin to bolt? If so, what will that look like? If Mr. Trump is done in and his supporters perceive it as the dark work of an underhanded establishment, will they bolt? What will that look like? Will it mean they go home, stay there and refuse to come out in November? Or will they mount a third party with Mr. Trump, having changed his mind once again, at the top? If that happened—here the unknowables and the potential for drama begin to spin out in creative and unexpected directions—could each of three parties garner enough support to produce an Electoral College deadlock? That would be resolved by the House, where Republicans will likely continue to control the majority of state delegations. Would GOP representatives go for the establishment Republican or the third-party Republican?
If at some point Mr. Trump appears to be on a sure glide path to the nomination, will the party establishment begin to bolt? If so, what will that look like? If Mr. Trump is done in and his supporters perceive it as the dark work of an underhanded establishment, will they bolt? What will that look like? Will it mean they go home, stay there and refuse to come out in November? Or will they mount a third party with Mr. Trump, having changed his mind once again, at the top? If that happened—here the unknowables and the potential for drama begin to spin out in creative and unexpected directions—could each of three parties garner enough support to produce an Electoral College deadlock? That would be resolved by the House, where Republicans will likely continue to control the majority of state delegations. Would GOP representatives go for the establishment Republican or the third-party Republican?
.
I have not seen a political cycle so confounding in my lifetime, and it could continue into a year of the most historic kind. If you love politics—the excitement, the unknowability, the to-and-fro—this is the year for you. If you take unhappy U.S. political trends seriously—the shallowness, the restiveness, the division of our polity—you will feel legitimate concern.
I have not seen a political cycle so confounding in my lifetime, and it could continue into a year of the most historic kind. If you love politics—the excitement, the unknowability, the to-and-fro—this is the year for you. If you take unhappy U.S. political trends seriously—the shallowness, the restiveness, the division of our polity—you will feel legitimate concern.
.
We could see a great party split in two. That, I think, is what I’m seeing among the Republicans, a slow-motion break. The question is whether it will play out over the next few cycles or turn abrupt and fiery in this one. Some in Washington speak giddily of the prospect, wondering aloud if the new party’s logo should be a lion or a gazelle. But America’s two-party system has reigned almost since its beginning, and it has kept us from much woe. It has provided stability, reliability and, yes, progress. The breaking or splintering of one of those parties would be an epochal event. Ross Perot in the 1990s was a one-off; the party soon enough healed back into one. Mr. Trump may be a one-off, but the divisions he’s revealed—on how on-the-ground and unprotected people feel about illegal immigration, on the deeper and more dangerous implications of political correctness, on a host of economic and cultural issues—will not, I suspect, be resolved so easily.
We could see a great party split in two. That, I think, is what I’m seeing among the Republicans, a slow-motion break. The question is whether it will play out over the next few cycles or turn abrupt and fiery in this one. Some in Washington speak giddily of the prospect, wondering aloud if the new party’s logo should be a lion or a gazelle. But America’s two-party system has reigned almost since its beginning, and it has kept us from much woe. It has provided stability, reliability and, yes, progress. The breaking or splintering of one of those parties would be an epochal event. Ross Perot in the 1990s was a one-off; the party soon enough healed back into one. Mr. Trump may be a one-off, but the divisions he’s revealed—on how on-the-ground and unprotected people feel about illegal immigration, on the deeper and more dangerous implications of political correctness, on a host of economic and cultural issues—will not, I suspect, be resolved so easily.
.
If the GOP breaks it will be bitter. The establishment thinks they are saving the party from the vandals—from Trumpian know-nothingism. But Republicans on the ground think those in the establishment were the vandals, with their open borders, donor-class interests and social liberalism.
If the GOP breaks it will be bitter. The establishment thinks they are saving the party from the vandals—from Trumpian know-nothingism. But Republicans on the ground think those in the establishment were the vandals, with their open borders, donor-class interests and social liberalism.
.
The distance between the top of the party and the bottom has been growing for years, at least since 2008. The bonds between the two have stretched and stretched, and this year they began to snap. That’s the story of the year, that the snapping became obvious. Mr. Trump and the Trumps of the future are the result, not the cause. The establishment does not see this. They think it’s about him. It’s about them.
The distance between the top of the party and the bottom has been growing for years, at least since 2008. The bonds between the two have stretched and stretched, and this year they began to snap. That’s the story of the year, that the snapping became obvious. Mr. Trump and the Trumps of the future are the result, not the cause. The establishment does not see this. They think it’s about him. It’s about them.
.
Finally, briefly and befitting an end-of-year column, what did I get right and wrong in 2015?
Finally, briefly and befitting an end-of-year column, what did I get right and wrong in 2015?
.
A year ago I said Mitt Romney should not run. “This is a moment in history that demands superior political gifts. . . . Mitt Romney does not have them. He never did. He’s good at life and good at business and good at faith. He is politically clunky, always was and always will be. His clunkiness is seen in the way he leaked his interest in running: to mega-millionaires and billionaires in New York. ‘Tell your friends.’ ” I still think that was right. Whatever is ailing the party now, he is not the answer.
A year ago I said Mitt Romney should not run. “This is a moment in history that demands superior political gifts. . . . Mitt Romney does not have them. He never did. He’s good at life and good at business and good at faith. He is politically clunky, always was and always will be. His clunkiness is seen in the way he leaked his interest in running: to mega-millionaires and billionaires in New York. ‘Tell your friends.’ ” I still think that was right. Whatever is ailing the party now, he is not the answer.
.
A month later I said I didn’t see Jeb Bush as the front-runner but just another candidate, and one making “a poor impression.” Mr. Bush at that point was “spending much of his time in The Rooms—offices and conference rooms—with millionaires and billionaires.” He spoke their language, his family name provided entrée, his fundraising prowess was impressive. However: “There’s something tentative and joyless in Mr. Bush’s public presentations. He isn’t mixing it up with voters or wading into the crowd. So far he is not good at the podium. His recent foreign-policy speech was both bland and jangly, and its one memorable statement—‘I am my own man’—was the kind of thing a candidate shouldn’t have to say.
A month later I said I didn’t see Jeb Bush as the front-runner but just another candidate, and one making “a poor impression.” Mr. Bush at that point was “spending much of his time in The Rooms—offices and conference rooms—with millionaires and billionaires.” He spoke their language, his family name provided entrée, his fundraising prowess was impressive. However: “There’s something tentative and joyless in Mr. Bush’s public presentations. He isn’t mixing it up with voters or wading into the crowd. So far he is not good at the podium. His recent foreign-policy speech was both bland and jangly, and its one memorable statement—‘I am my own man’—was the kind of thing a candidate shouldn’t have to say.
.
“What is most missing so far is a fierce sense of engagement, a passionate desire to lead America out of the morass, a fiery—or Churchillian—certainty that he is the man for the moment. In its place we see a softer, wanner I’m smart, accomplished, know policy, and it’s my turn.”
“What is most missing so far is a fierce sense of engagement, a passionate desire to lead America out of the morass, a fiery—or Churchillian—certainty that he is the man for the moment. In its place we see a softer, wanner I’m smart, accomplished, know policy, and it’s my turn.”
.
An October column said: “Jeb just isn’t very good at this.” I said his victory was impossible for me to envision. Still is.
An October column said: “Jeb just isn’t very good at this.” I said his victory was impossible for me to envision. Still is.
.
In July I thought Scott Walker would be “highly competitive” for the nomination. He was not. In August I said Ted Cruz would get “deadlier as the number of candidates winnows down.” That seems to be bearing out.
In July I thought Scott Walker would be “highly competitive” for the nomination. He was not. In August I said Ted Cruz would get “deadlier as the number of candidates winnows down.” That seems to be bearing out.
.
When Mr. Trump announced in June, I knew he’d hit a powerful nerve but did not see him lasting as long as he has. He was a product of voter anger, contempt and lowering standards: “We’re entering Weimar, baby.” In time I saw his power. In August I noted: “The traditional mediating or guiding institutions within the Republican universe—its establishment, respected voices in conservative media, sober-minded state party officials—have little to no impact on Mr. Trump’s rise. Some say voices of authority should stand up to oppose him, which will lower his standing. But Republican powers don’t have that kind of juice anymore.” Traveling around the country, “my biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink ‘the base,’ reimagine it when they see it in their minds. . . . America is so in play,” and the base is “becoming a big, broad jumble that few understand.”
When Mr. Trump announced in June, I knew he’d hit a powerful nerve but did not see him lasting as long as he has. He was a product of voter anger, contempt and lowering standards: “We’re entering Weimar, baby.” In time I saw his power. In August I noted: “The traditional mediating or guiding institutions within the Republican universe—its establishment, respected voices in conservative media, sober-minded state party officials—have little to no impact on Mr. Trump’s rise. Some say voices of authority should stand up to oppose him, which will lower his standing. But Republican powers don’t have that kind of juice anymore.” Traveling around the country, “my biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink ‘the base,’ reimagine it when they see it in their minds. . . . America is so in play,” and the base is “becoming a big, broad jumble that few understand.”
.
I asserted his appeal was not limited to Republicans. My highly scientific reason is that in talking to Trump supporters it often emerged that they were Democrats or independents.
I asserted his appeal was not limited to Republicans. My highly scientific reason is that in talking to Trump supporters it often emerged that they were Democrats or independents.
.
Happy New Year; let’s get through it together.
Happy New Year; let’s get through it together.
.
Comments