TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~  
The Missing Order in American Politics
Peggy Noonan
  

.
Trump demands end to ‘phony investigations’ 
in fiery Rose Garden statement, after 
meeting with Dems cut short
by Alex Pappas  
foxnews.com } ~ President Trump on Wednesday demanded Democrats   end what he called their "phony investigations" before he'll negotiate with them on issues like infrastructure... as he delivered a fiery statement from the Rose Garden after a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pulosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck scumbag-Schumer was cut short. The president had met for mere minutes with the two Democratic leaders in a session scheduled to discuss a possible bipartisan infrastructure package. But moments before that sit-down, Pulosi had accused Trump of having "engaged in a cover-up" regarding the Russia probe. Trump suggested the comments, and the numerous investigations into him, prevented them from negotiating.“You can't do it under these circumstances,” Trump said. “Get these phony investigations over with.” The president said he wanted to pursue an infrastructure proposal, but "instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk in to look at people that have just said that I was doing a cover-up." Trump added: "I don't do cover-ups.” Asked what happened during the meeting, a Senior House Dem source told Fox News: “Nothing good.” scumbag-Schumer, during a press conference back at the Capitol, said Trump's decision to bolt the meeting and address the press in the Rose Garden was hardly spontaneous. Speaking alongside Pulosi in a separate session, he called it a "pre-planned excuse" -- citing the ready-made sign that Trump had at the podium. “We are interested in doing infrastructure," scumbag-Schumer said. "It's clear the president isn't. He is looking for every excuse.” Pulosi appeared exasperated over the meeting, telling reporters, "He just took a pass. And it makes me wonder why he did that. In any event, I pray for the president of the United States. I pray for the United States of America.”...
.
No Debate: Capitalism vs. Socialism
by Alexander G. Markovsky
americanthinker.com } ~ The recent FOX News Business town hall debate proved once again that no lessons of history will dampen the magic of the socialist’s divine providence. Its magnetic appeal to a man of limited abilities to fulfill his unlimited needs at the expense... of the “exploiters of working people” is irresistible. Without offering a clear definition and ideological purpose of socialism by either side, the discussion had centered on warts and blemishes of a capitalist system. Fixated on the single idea that capitalism is inherently flawed, the socialists advocated its replacement with a government controlled social organization that would presumably ensure universal justice and equality with a plethora of lavish social programs. Although the socialists could not explain how the fulfillment of the egalitarian dreams would be implemented and at what cost, the socialist dreams showed no bounds.  In their quest from reality, the emphasis was not on economics, but on ideological conquest. Therefore any argument, no matter how absurd, ridiculous or simply false, could be thrown forward in support of illusory virtues of socialism. Marxist economist Richard Wolff at the climactic moment threw down the glove to the host Charles Payne with a bizarre statement that China is an example of successful socialism. “China used a very powerful socialist economic model to do one thing, to grow quickly, to stop being poor and to become wealthy,” he said. Yes, it is powerful. The ancient empires had been built on this economic model, which is called slavery. China's communist regime has been using slave labor, in many instances literally, to convert China into the manufacturing facility of the United States. The reliance on the American market is existential for China. After President Trump closes the trade loopholes, China’s economic model will prove a socialist chimera. And, there was, of course, the Scandinavian model. The socialist desperate to find success of socialism anywhere pointed out to Scandinavia. Whether the Scandinavian economic model is socialism or capitalism is not even the point. This model is totally foreign to America that has been built on different social and economic principles. The Scandinavian countries given their size -- Denmark has a population of the city of Houston - and severe climate, have embraced collectivism as the imperative for survival. The principles of collectivism could easily be confused by some with the ideas of socialism... https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/no_debate_capitali...  
.
Russian Plans for This Week's 
European Union Elections
by Con Coughlin
gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ No one is working harder to achieve a successful outcome from this week's European Union elections than Russian President Vladimir Putin... Even though there is little prospect of Russia ever wanting to join the family of EU nations, that has not stopped Mr Putin from intensifying his efforts to expand his influence over those countries that are members of the European trade bloc. Consequently, at a time when Moscow is desperate to have the sanctions lifted that have been imposed in response to various Russian acts of provocation, such as last year's Salisbury poisoning, Mr Putin is investing much time and energy to ensure that a strong pro-Russian lobby is elected to the new EU parliament following Thursday's Europe-wide ballot. The EU, together with the US, has been at the forefront of the international campaign to hold Moscow to account for its role in the Salisbury attack in March 2018, when a team of Russian GRU intelligence officers have been accused of attempting to murder former Russian Sergei Skripal with Novichok nerve agent. The attack resulted in the strengthening of the sanctions originally imposed against Moscow in the wake of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as its interference in eastern Ukraine. Despite Moscow's protestations to the contrary, the sanctions have had an adverse impact on the Russian economy, which has contracted by around 3 per cent, prompting Mr Putin to search for ways to ease the impact the sanctions are having on Russia's economic fortunes. To this end he is actively cultivating a network of contacts in EU member states with the aim of building a pro-Russian bloc in the next EU parliament, one that will be active in calling for the sanctions to be lifted...   https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14253/russia-eu-elections  
.
Why The Democratic Establishment Won’t 
Stand Up To Their Party’s Anti-Semites 
by Ben Weingarten 
thefederalist.com } ~ Perhaps the most significant long-term development taking place in the Democratic Party is its surrender to the party’s Blame America First wing... One of many indications of this is House Democratic leadership’s ardent defense of its virulently anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and fundamentally  anti-American and anti-Western colleagues. The Democrat establishment’s cave began when House Speaker Nancy Pulosi chastised Rep. worthless-Ilhan Omar for her anti-Semitic comments, only to then cravenly acquiesce to party progressives by passing a House resolution that refused to condemn worthless-Omar by name, and refused to solely condemn worthless-Omar’s offending anti-Semitic rhetoric. It accelerated with the party’s attack on critics of worthless-Omar’s comments seemingly trivializing the attacks of September 11, 2001. Then, in the wake of Pulosi and House Majority Leader scumbag-Steny Hoyer’s feckless, supportive responses for Rep. worthless-Rashida Tlaib following the firestorm she created with her  historically illiterate, Hamas-ian hagiographyof Israel’s founding, the Holocaust, and the Arabs’ role in relation to both, the cave to the Blame America Firsters appears to be complete. The Democrat Old Guard will no longer engage in even muted criticism of its Party’s provocative Young Turks. Rather, it will wholeheartedly defend the provocateurs and vociferously condemn their condemners. The pertinent question few are asking is, “Why?” Assuming the Democratic leadership is driven above all else by power, I suggest three primary reasons for this shameful shift. At the start of this Congress, leading House Democrats were content to dismiss radical freshmen such as worthless-Tlaib and worthless-Omar as a small, powerless minority, while still happily gracing magazine covers with them. worthless-Tlaib rightly recognized that she and her colleagues were being used as political props, playing to the party’s identity politics predilections...   https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/22/democratic-establishment-wont-...  
.
Fury in Judea and Samaria: 
'Complete abandonment of human life'
by Mordechai Sones
israelnationalnews.com } ~  Regional Council head Yossi Dagan attacked the defense establishment decision to approve the transfer of armored vehicles to the Palestinian Authority by the European Union... The vehicles, which were transferred to the Palestinian Authority security services as a gift from the EU, were reportedly sent to Judea and Samaria through Jordan.Dagan said the armored vehicles transfer is "total abandonment of human life and taking an unacceptable risk both of the lives of IDF soldiers and of the lives of the residents of Judea and Samaria." "Any reasonable person understands that the supply of armored vehicles with machine guns for terrorists in uniform is a decision that could cost a lot of blood," Dagan says. "Many terror attacks in Judea and Samaria, in which Jewish soldiers and civilians were murdered, were carried out by or with the help of Fatah soldiers or policemen of the Palestinian Authority, Ido Zoldan, Rabbi Meir Hai, Ben Yosef Livnat, Eviatar Borovsky, and many others were murdered by Palestinian policemen or by the Palestinian GSS," he said."It's amazing that those people who participated in the 'Don't give them guns' demonstrations during the Oslo days are now giving them armored cars. I've called on those who made this unfortunate decision to regain their wits. They also give the enemy armored cars. Unbelievable," said Dagan. The last time PA armored vehicles aroused controversy was in 2000 when a paper published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research identified the PA armored threat to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, saying "Because the IDF limits yishuv self defense to small arms, the growing armor vehicle capability of the PA would render the assault troops it carries invulnerable to yishuv defenders. The IDF gate guards do not have anything to stop these vehicles. The standard sliding gates for all yishuvim would buckle under the impact of such armored vehicles, and many yishuvim lack even this 'obstacle' – such that the only thing separating between the attacker and the yishuv is a moving aluminum arm painted red and white."...  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/263495  
.
The Missing Order in American Politics

Peggy Noonan
 

I am watching Washington and thinking this: We have reached a new crisis point in Donald Trump vs. the Democrats. They are speaking of contempt citations, subpoenas, executive privilege, hearings. It’s a daily barrage. The Democrats are inching closer to impeachment, at least rhetorically, perhaps actually. We’ll see how well Speaker Nancy Pulosi can dance right up to the edge to appease some in her caucus, and not over it.

But there is such a thing as context, and the Democrats seem to be ignoring it. This is a country divided.

Almost half the country is for Mr. Trump — truly, madly, deeply. Half is against him — unequivocally, unchangeably. There is no resolving this. Or rather to the extent it can be resolved, it will be resolved at the ballot box. The presidential election is 18 months from now, on Nov. 3, 2020.

Until then, people are where they are and hold the views they hold, and don’t push them too hard.

Democrats unveil charges and accusations — the president is a liar, he’s a tax dodger, an obstructor of justice. But in a way Mr. Trump’s supporters accounted for all this before they elected him. They are not shocked. They didn’t hire him to be a good man. Their politics are post-heroic. They sometimes tell reporters he’s a man of high character but mostly to drive the reporters crazy. I have never talked to a Trump supporter, and my world is thick with them, who thought he had a high personal character. On the other hand they sincerely believe he has a high political character, in that he pursues the issues he campaigned on. They hired him as an insult to the political class, as a Hail Mary pass — we’ve tried everything else, maybe this will work — and because he agreed with them on the issues.

Supporters give him high marks for not looking down on them as they believe most members of the media, who are always trying to “understand” them, do. Their attitude is: “Don’t try to understand me, like you’re the anthropologist and we’re the savages. I’m an American, what are you?” They factor the cultural animosity in. When they jeer the press during rallies at the president’s direction, they don’t really mean it. They’re having fun and talking back. They’d be happy if their kids became reporters — an affluent profession, and half of them are famous. The president doesn’t really hate the press either, he wants their love and admiration. You don’t need the admiration of people you truly disdain.

Trump supporters now are looking around and thinking: Things are looking up. The economy is gangbusters, everyone can get a job, good people are on the courts. Something good is happening with China — it’s unclear what, but at least he’s pushing back. As for illegal immigration, he at least cares about it and means to make it better, though no, it doesn’t seem improved.

To take all Congress’s time right now and devote it to attacking the president, or impeaching him, will be experienced as a vast, disheartening insult by half the country, and disheartening. It will simply damage the country and be seen as extreme and destructive. It will keep good things, such as an infrastructure bill, from happening.

As a purely political calculation it will do the Democrats no good. Nonstop scandal theater starring the theatrically indignant will only make people who hate Mr. Trump hate him a little more, and people who support Mr. Trump hate his foes a little more. It will not move any needle.

dirty cop-Robert Mueller, often praised in this space, didn’t resolve anything, did he? People wanted clarity, not subtlety and indirection. So yes, as a last hurrah let him speak. What did he think his report was saying and implying? What in his view would be a just outcome to the story of Mr. Trump and the Russians and 2016?

Beyond that, enough already. We have to have a greater appreciation for how split we are as a nation, and how delicate this all is. And we have to remember we’re not only split, we’re conjoined. We share this country.

We are like Chang and Eng, the 19th century Siamese Twin brothers who worked for P.T. Barnum. They could not be separated and went through their long lives together, married to different women, living in different houses — a few days a week in this one, a few in another.

It wasn’t easy for them to walk through life together, but they did. We have to, too.

Now I wish to switch subjects. Don’t you?

“How to do it” is the hardest question in life after “what to do.” It’s hard enough to make the decision. Then you have to execute. A right decision poorly executed might as well be a wrong one. This is in a way the subject of a small book called “Kissinger on Kissinger” by Winston Lord. It is composed of transcripts of Henry Kissinger’s first and only oral history, based on six interviews conducted by Mr. Lord, President Reagan’s ambassador to China, and K.T. McFarland, who served as Mr. Trump’s deputy national security adviser.

“Like all oral histories, this is a brief for my case,” Mr. Kissinger writes in the introduction. “I did not go out of my way to be self-critical.” He doesn’t. But there is a lot of how-to for diplomats — how the opening with China occurred and was made to occur, how the Soviets were handled as that breakthrough became real, what drove Nixon-era Mideast shuttle diplomacy.

I should note here that Mr. Kissinger is always called “deeply controversial” because he is, that his diplomatic efforts with and under President Nixon were often bold and creative, certainly deeply consequential, and that one of the most remarkable things about him is that he is 95 and has, for 50 years, remained a major public figure and retained his status as a major thinker. Foreign leaders treat him with the gravest respect. Mr. Lord calls this “a remarkable performance of savvy, stamina and sway.”

At his 90th-birthday party, which I attended as a friend, former secretaries of state of both parties lined up to thank him for his advice, wisdom and encouragement. I admit I cannot see his public self without thinking of the 16-year-old immigrant who worked in a shaving-brush factory in New York. The tough Italian-American men he worked with teased the German refugee and took him to Yankee Stadium to learn to be an American. There he first saw the man who years later on meeting him struck him dumb: Joe DiMaggio.

But I’ve gotten away from the book.

It has many good things. In the formation of foreign policy successful international negotiations, “everything depends … on some conception of the future.” The bias of bureaucracy is toward dailiness: there are communiqués to answer, immediate decisions that require response. In this atmosphere a leader must develop an overall sense of where he wants to go and how to get there.

Every diplomatic effort must begin with an articulated intention. He and Nixon “spent hours together asking ‘What are we trying to do, what are we trying to achieve, what are we trying to prevent?’” The “end state” is the goal, not the process.

In a way it is a tribute to order. Oh, I miss that.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/63096?mailing_id=4285&utm_medium...  

Views: 15

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip BokThe cartoonist's homepage, pnj.com/opinion

ALERT ALERT

YIKES!!! Chelsea Clinton Emphatically States A Person With A Beard And A Penis Can ‘Absolutely’ Identify As A Woman

  • The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification
  • In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons about transgender self-identification
  • Chelsea Clinton replied ‘yes’ emphatically when asked if someone with a beard and penis can ever be a woman
  • ‘It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently,’ Hillary said
  • Aitkenhead said Hillary became ‘uneasy’ when the question was asked while Chelsea shot a ‘furious stare’ at the journalist as her mother answered
  • Hillary added: ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw’

(Daily Mail) – It may appear Hillary and Chelsea Clinton always see eye-to-eye, but in a recent interview one topic cracked the facade of the like-minded mother-daughter power duo.

The one issue Hillary and Chelsea don’t appear to agree on entirely is transgender self-identification.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, journalist Decca Aitkenhead asked the Clintons if someone with a beard and a penis can ever be a woman, to which Chelsea replied emphatically, ‘Yes.’

However, as Aitkenhead describes it, Hillary looked ‘uneasy’, and blamed generational gaps for being less accepting.

‘Errr. I’m just learning about this,’ Hillary responded. ‘It’s a very big generational discussion, because this is not something I grew up with or ever saw. It’s going to take a lot more time and effort to understand what it means to be defining yourself differently.’

The Clintons sat sown with Aitkenhead to promote the book they co-authored, The Book of Gutsy Women: Favorite Stories of Courage and Resilience.

The book features Danica Roem, the first trans woman elected to a U.S. state legislature.

According Aitkenhead’s account, she tells Hillary during the interview that many British feminists of Hillary’s generation have a problem with the idea that a ‘lesbian who doesn’t want to sleep with someone who has a penis is transphobic.’

Hillary nods in agreement, while Chelsea ‘stiffens and stares at me’, according to Aitkenhead.

The journalist then adds that many women of Hillary’s generation are uncomfortable with biological males sharing women’s bathrooms.

‘I would say that, absolutely,’ Hillary nods firmly. ‘Absolutely. Yes.’

That’s when Chelsea begins shooting a ‘furious stare’ at Aitkenhead, who points it out to her.

‘I’m a terrible actor’, Chelsea laughs.

Chelsea then says she is thrilled with the National Health Service’s decision to assign patients to single-sex wards according to the gender they identify as, instead of their biological make up.

‘How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?’ Chelsea says.

‘And I strongly support children being able to play on the sports teams that match their own gender identity,’ she adds. ‘I think we need to be doing everything we can to support kids in being whoever they know themselves to be and discovering who they are.’

At this point Hillary looks conflicted.

‘I think you’ve got to be sensitive to how difficult this is,’ Hillary says. ‘There are women who’d say [to a trans woman], ”You know what, you’ve never had the kind of life experiences that I’ve had. So I respect who you are, but don’t tell me you’re the same as me.” I hear that conversation all the time.’

Despite the clear tension in the room, the pair say they don’t argue about this topic.

But according to Aitkenhead, ‘I get the impression they don’t like to present anything less than a united front to the world.’

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service