George Soros gave Ivanka's husband's business a $250 million credit line in 2015 per WSJ. Soros is also an investor in Jared's business.

Friday, December 18, 2015

Disband the Republican Party, let Democrats run it, because that's what's happening anyway. Republicans have largest number of seats in the House of Representatives they've had since the Civil War, and it hasn't made any difference at all-Rush Limbaugh, 12/17/15

12/17/15, "GOP Sells America Down the River," Rush Limbaugh 

"And now the Republicans have the largest number of seats in the House they've had in Congress since the Civil War. And it hasn't made any difference at all. It is as though Nancy Pelosi is still running the House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate. "Betrayed" is not even the word here. What has happened here is worse than betrayal. Betrayal is pretty bad, but it's worse than that....[W]e don't even need a Republican Party if they're gonna do this. You know, just elect Democrats, disband the Republican Party, and let the Democrats run it, because that's what's happening anyway." 







...............

Trump has 14 point lead in New Hampshire Franklin Pierce University Boston Herald poll, Dec. 13-17, 2015. 71% of Trump voters are firm, won't change their mind compared to 45% avg.

Trump 26.0
Cruz 12.4
Rubio 12.4
Christie 10.8
Bush 9.8
Kasich 7.5
Fiorina 6.1
Carson 4.9
Paul 2.9
Graham .4
Pataki .3
Santorum .3
Huckabee .2

430 likely New Hampshire Republican voters, 35.7 Registered Independents and 64.3 Registered Republicans. Land lines and cellphones, 4.7% error margin

12/18/15, "Donald Trump holds the frontrunner position in New Hampshire, but other outsiders drift as Chris Christie, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio gain momentum," R. Kelly Myers, Marlin Fitzwater Fellow, Franklin Pierce University

"Seventy-one percent of voters who would vote for Trump said it was a firm choice, suggesting that his support may be the most solid among the Republican candidates."...By comparison, overall only 45% of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters describe their vote choice as firm. (p. 4)...

"Methodology:

"The results outlined in this report are based on a survey conducted by RKM Research and Communications on behalf of Franklin Pierce University and the Boston Herald. All interviews were conducted by paid, trained and professionally supervised interviewers. The survey is based on a probabilistic sample 430 likely Republican presidential primary voters in New Hampshire. Interviews were conducted by landline and cellular telephone, December 13-17, 2015. The sampling margin of error is +/-4.7 percent."...

 


 
............

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Trump edges Cruz in Iowa Public Policy Poll, Dec. 10-13, 2015. Trump supporters place higher priority on beating a Democrat in 2016: 31% to 20% each for Cruz and Rubio. 78% support temporary ban on Muslims entering US

Trump 28
Cruz 25
Rubio 14
Carson 10
Bush 7 
Christie 3
Fiorina 3
Huckabee 3
Kasich 2
Paul 2
Graham 1
Santorum 1

Poll dates Dec. 10-13, 2015. 522 usual Iowa Republican primary voters, 80% telephone, 20% without landlines surveyed via internet. 4.3 error margin.

PPP likes to have fun, this time includes FDR internment camps in its headline:

12/15/15, "Trump Edges Cruz in Iowa; His Supporters Think Japanese Internment Was Good; Clinton Still Well Ahead," Public Policy Polling, Tom Jensen

"PPP’s newest Iowa poll finds Donald Trump and Ted Cruz at the top of the heap with 28% and 25% respectively. Marco Rubio at 14% and Ben Carson at 10% are also in double digits with Jeb Bush at 7% the only other candidate who clears even 3%. Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee all hit that level with John Kasich and Rand Paul each getting 2%, Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum each getting 1%, and Jim Gilmore and George Pataki both having literally no support.

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Bush have all seen varying increases in their support in the six weeks since we last polled Iowa. Cruz obviously has the most momentum, picking up 11 points from his 14% standing in early November. Trump has gained 6 points, Rubio 4 points, and Bush 2 points.

“Ted Cruz’s momentum in Iowa is getting all the attention,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “But Donald Trump is on the up swing there as well."

As we’ve been finding across the country for the last month Carson has seen the most serious downward arc in his support, dropping 11 points from his previous 21% standing. Huckabee’s dropped 3 points and Fiorina by 2 points as well.

There are a lot of divisions between where Cruz and Trump’s support is coming from. Among voters whose biggest concern is having a candidate who’s conservative on the issues Cruz leads with 33% to 26% for Trump and 15% for Carson. But with voters whose biggest concern is being able to beat a Democrat in the general election, Trump wins out with 31% to 20% each for Cruz and Rubio. Cruz leads Trump 31/30 with men, but Trump more than makes up for that with a 26/17 lead among women. Cruz has a strong advantage with ‘very conservative’ voters at 37% to 25% for Trump and 14% for Carson but Trump leads based on his strength with moderates, with whom gets 42% to 14% each for Rubio and Bush.

It’s ironic that Trump leads with moderates, because the views of his supporters wouldn’t be considered moderate by most standards:

-78% support Trump’s call to bans Muslims from entering the United States, to only 13% who oppose it. Overall 54% of Republicans support him on that to 28% who are opposed. Supporters of Cruz (62/20) and Carson (54/25) also favor a Muslim ban while backers of Rubio (28/48) and Bush (28/49) are opposed.

-65% of Trump voters think thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center, to only 11% who don’t think that happened. Overall 43% of Republicans think that event occurred to 29% who don’t. Supporters of Carson (44/10) and Cruz (45/26) agree with Trump’s that it happened while those of Rubio (24/47) and Bush (12/62) say it didn’t....

-45% of Trump voters want to shut down the mosques in the United States, to only 23% who are opposed to doing that. Overall just 27% of Republicans support that to 45% who are opposed though. Supporters of all the other major GOP candidates are opposed to shutting down mosques- it’s 32/48 with Carson backers, 25/44 with those of Cruz, 9/66 with Rubio voters, and 9/69 with Bush’s.

-Finally as long as we were at it we decided we’d ask people if they thought Japanese internment had been a good idea. Among Trump voters 48% say they support the use of internment during World War II, to only 21% who say they oppose it. Overall just 29% of Republicans support that to 39% opposed, and supporters of all the other candidates are against it- 29/33 with Cruz voters, 23/54 with Rubio’s, 12/48 with Carson’s, and 13/56 with Bush’s.

Quick notes on some other hopefuls:  

-Bush has the highest negatives of any of the candidates with 47% seeing him unfavorably to only 35% who have a positive view. He continues to particularly have a credibility issue on the right- with ‘very conservative’ voters his favorability is 24/61 and just 2% of voters within that group favor him for the nomination.

-What we’re continuing to find with Rubio right now is that he’s sort of in a holding pattern. When we polled Iowa last month he was in 4th place with a 60/20 favorability rating. Now thanks to the collapse of Carson he’s in 3rd place with a nearly identical 59/22 favorability. He’s not getting much momentum but he’s at least not falling apart either.

-Carson’s not just losing out on people saying he’s their first choice- he’s had a general decline in his image with GOP voters. Last month he had a +61 (74/13) favorability, that’s now dropped to +40 at 63/23....

-John Kasich’s just really not making an impact. A plurality of GOP voters- 41%- don’t even have an opinion about him one way or the other. Among voters who do have one it’s quite negative with only 22% seeing him favorably to 37% with a negative view.

-Mike Huckabee on the other hand is very popular with the Republican base....That goodwill just isn’t translating into support for the nomination for him though.... 

Public Policy Polling surveyed 526 usual Democratic primary voters and 522 usual Republican primary voters from December 10th to 13th. The margin of error for both parties is +/-4.3%. 80% of participants responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet."


....................
......
"Posted by: Sting McCoy | December 15, 2015 at 11:36 AM" 
........

"Literally none of the things that you're calling conservative are conservative. National Security isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Responding terrorism isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Your using internment is an example of my point. It was done by the most famous Liberal Democrat of the last century.

Cruz is clearly far right of Trump. The voters in your poll recognize that.

Last but not least: It would probably be best going forward if you used the term internment in the headline for Democrat Polls. They're the party that believed in bypassing Congress
and jailing Japanese Americans."

...........

Monday, December 14, 2015

Shaming America yet again, Republican Establishment Senators were no-show for climate scientists invited to speak to them on matters of great importance to their electorates. Conversely, all Democrat members were present-Mark Steyn

12/14/15, "The GOP Don't Never Dance With Them What Brung Them," Mark Steyn, Steyn on America 

"I've received many letters like this about my appearance last week in the United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Steyn:
I've been following the reports on your appearance to give Senate testimony, and the troubles you and other witnesses encountered there. I don't want to pretend that I'm any kind of expert in such matters, but it was my impression going in that the hearings were Senator Cruz's idea, and that you were his invitee. If so, how were the proceedings commandeered by Sen. Markey in the manner that your posts suggest?
Sincerely,
Thomas Evans...
It might be truer to say that the Democrats as a whole commandeered the proceedings. But even that would not be strictly correct. What happened is that Senate Republicans chose to permit the Dems to commandeer them
.
How did that happen? Ted Cruz's Science committee is a sub-committee of the Senate Commerce committee. The sub-committee has six Republican members, five Democrats. The senior party representatives on the overall Commerce committee - John Thune (Republican) and Bill Nelson (Democrat) - are ex officio members of the sub-committee and are also permitted to attend. So there should have been seven Republicans and six Democrats in the room that afternoon. Instead:
All the Democratic subcommittee members were present and accounted for: Senator Tom Udall, (D-NM), the Ranking Member; Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ); Senator Gary Peters (D-MI); Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI). Also in attendance, the Ranking Member of Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL).
In Washington, as Woody Allen once joked, ninety percent of success is showing up. All the Democrats showed up.
However, John Thune (R-SD), Chairman of the full committee, was a no-show.
Thus, the most senior Senator present for the hearing, in an institution dedicated to Seniority (hence the name "Senate"), was a Democrat.
Only one other Republican was present on the dais, Senators Steve Daines (R-MT). All the other G.O.P. members, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK) were absent. Message: I don't care.
Also absent was Cory Gardner, the Colorado Republican. Daines tossed a friendly pitch for his home-state audience, with amusing references to some pal of his re-charging his Tesla in Bozeman. And, when he was done schmoozing for Eyewitness News in Bozeman, he left the room. So, for the remaining 70 per cent of the hearing, what should have been six Democrats and seven Republicans was instead six Democrats and one Republican - the lonely chairman, Ted Cruz. That's why the Dems got 85 per cent of the question time and lobbed puffballs at Rear Admiral Titley - until eventually Judith Curry and I chose to push back at the fatuous Markey.

Why did this happen? I'm a foreigner, and I certainly rarely feel more foreign than when I'm in the ghastly US Senate. But I've attended committees in the Canadian parliament and other parts of the Commonwealth and can't recall any occasion when the majority party's members have chosen to boycott the hearing.

Why did no Republicans show up? Rubio was off campaigning in California and ignoring all those senatorial duties his constituent Jeb! wants him to focus on. But Thune and the rest of those guys were all in the building, voting on various Senate flim-flam going on that day. So even though they were 90 seconds away they chose not to attend.
 
The not so subtle reason is that, like Bob Dole (currently threatening, if Cruz is the nominee, to "oversleep" on Election Day), their antipathy to Ted Cruz outweighs everything else. Dole feels that Cruz has been given the greatest honor any man can have - the keys to the Senate men's room - and yet he won't play by the rules of the club.

The slightly subtler reason is that these Republicans felt that the whole climate biz was a bit of a hot potato for them. Yet, putting aside my own presence, the three scientists in the room were among the most respectable figures in the field: John Christy is the great innovator who developed the world's first satellite temperature record; Judith Curry, among the old boys' club of climate science, is perhaps the most distinguished female climatologist on earth, although she would disdain such a categorization; and Will Happer is an eminent Princeton physics professor garlanded with almost all the major awards in his field. All of them have paid a price for speaking out against Big Climate.  

So, in disdaining Cruz (and/or me), senators Thune, Rubio, Moran, Sullivan and Gardner were also disdaining some of the most distinguished climate realists on the planet. Those three scientists did not deserve that from a handful of political hacks. Indeed, by their absence, they were contributing to the overall message of climate conformism: If you disagree with the "97 per cent consensus", at least have the good taste to crawl away and die somewhere far off out of sight.
..........
As I've often said, the Republican Party is so good at folding they should be the White House valets. Doesn't matter what your issue is, they'll fold.

They fold on debt, on immigration, on regulation, on gay marriage, on Obamacare, on [Insert Your Issue Here]. Regardless of the merits of this or that issue, on the whole they'd rather pre-emptively surrender. And I got the definite sense from their no-show last week that for these guys global warming will be just the 173rd issue for which discretion is the better part of valor. Save your powder - for next year, next decade, whenever. If you're a Kansan, Floridian, Coloradan, South Dakotan or Alaskan and you voted because you want sanity in environmental policy, well, tough: the GOP don't dance with them what brung them, no way, no how.

Which may have something to do with why Trump, Cruz, Carson and Fiorina have a combined 66 per cent of the vote in the latest poll - and the two clubbable senators, Rubio and Graham, have a combined 11 per cent."...






Sunday, December 13, 2015

ISIS has major constituencies in almost all Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan and has threatened both Sunni and Shia regimes-CNN, Thompson


12/10/15, "War on ISIS: Why Arab states aren't doing more," CNN, Nick Thompson
"Analysts say Yemen is at the center of a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the region's biggest powers. 

Religion and ethnicity are at the heart of the longstanding hostility between the two countries. Iran is majority Shia Muslim and non-Arab. Most of the other countries in the region -- including, and led by, Saudi Arabia -- are majority Sunni Arab, and are suspicious of Iran's motives.

So when Iranian-backed rebels seized Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, last year, a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states (including Egypt, Jordan and the UAE) was launched to try to defeat them. 

"The critical shift was the coalition in Yemen," says Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the London School of Economics. "You're talking about a major 24/7 war. The Saudis and the Emiratis -- the two countries with the most capacity in terms of air power -- are flying fighter jets over the skies of Yemen, so that's why you really have to prioritize the fight in Yemen over the fight against ISIS."

Yemen may have distracted many Arab states, but the threat of opposition -- not to mention revenge terror attacks -- at home has also made them fearful of greater involvement in the ISIS fight, according to analysts.

"The Arab states, including Jordan -- after the incident with the pilot [burned to death by ISIS when his plane crashed in Syria] -- are laying low," Gerges says. "ISIS doesn't just exist in Syria and Iraq -- it has major constituency supporters in almost all Arab countries, including Saudi, Kuwait, Lebanon and Jordan. So they want to really minimize the risks."

"Also, remember that one of the largest contingencies within ISIS are the Saudis. They're not just fighters, they play leadership roles -- and ISIS has carried out major attacks in Saudi, both against Shiite mosques and against (other) Saudi targets."

Arab states have long seen ISIS as Iran's problem, not theirs. 

The governments under the most immediate threat from ISIS -- those of Syria and Iraq -- are both key Iranian allies, so why can't the Iranians handle it?

That's been the prevailing logic amongst the Sunni Arab states, according to regional experts. They say Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are also less inclined to carry out strikes against ISIS targets if doing so helps Iran's allies in Damascus and Baghdad.

But Gerges says that view is evolving now that ISIS has grown into a global network claiming terror attacks from Paris to Australia. "There's been the idea that ISIS is a bigger challenge for Iran and its allies than it is for the Arab states, even though this feeling is changing now."

"ISIS has threatened not only Iran and the [Shia]-dominated regimes in Iraq and Syria but even the Sunni-dominated Arab states."

Putting Arab state "boots on the ground" is near impossible


Even if that wasn't the case, the likelihood of Syria or Iraq endorsing foreign military intervention is extremely unlikely, according to Ghadi Sary, a Middle East expert at Chatham House.

"I think it's going to be very hard for that to happen -- you've seen the Iraqi reaction to the presence of the Turkish army in northern Iraq," Sary says, referring to Iraq's ordering of Turkish troops out of the country on Monday.

"It is important for any intervening army to have the backing of the central government, or at least the army in the country," Sary says, "(including) the army of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who everyone will see as impossible to work with."

Sary also says most Arab militaries are more comfortable working inside -- not outside -- their own borders.

"For most of these countries, the over-involvement by the army in the internal affairs of the state has become acceptable, but when it comes to foreign intervention, it becomes problematic," he says. 

"We're seeing the Egyptian army focus on the Sinai and its internal problems, we're seeing the Syrian army doing that, and in Yemen it's almost seen as the Saudi army cleaning up their own backyard -- but not really intervention on the international level.""



..................

Donald Trump rises to new high in Wall St. Journal NBC News national poll, Dec. 6-9, 2015. Two polls were combined. Extra questions were added 'following Trump's proposal' on Dec. 8-9 to 495 respondents. That sample has 4.4 error margin. Separately, 'additional interviews on some questions were conducted on an additional sample of past GOP primary voters in order to increase to 400' the GOP survey total 12/6-9. That sample has 4.9% error margin-WSJ

Trump 27
Cruz 22
Rubio 15
Carson 11
Bush 7
Fiorina 5
Huckabee 3
Christie 3
Kasich 2
Paul 2

Poll dates 12/6/12/9/15 400 Registered Republican primary voters, 4.9 error margin. Poll dates 12/8-12/9/15, 495 Registered Republican primary voters, 4.4 error margin.  Methodology not stated, nor how two polls were combined.

12/13/15, "Trump, Cruz Lead GOP Field; Support for Carson Plummets, Poll Finds," Wall St. Journal, Janet Hook

"New Journal/NBC News poll shows Trump has 27% support, taking over top position from Carson"

"Donald Trump has risen to a new high and Ben Carson’s support has plummeted among Republican primary voters after a tumultuous month of international and domestic terrorism, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

Mr. Trump leads the Republican field with 27% support, taking over the top position from Mr. Carson, who led in a late October Journal/NBC News survey.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has vaulted into second place, amid signs that he has picked up former Carson supporters. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida placed third in the survey, but the poll also carried evidence that he stands to benefit most when the big field of GOP candidates is winnowed. 

Mr. Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, dropped to fourth place, with 11% support, down from 29% in late October. As terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., heightened attention to national security in the past month, Mr. Carson has stumbled on foreign policy questions, and critics have raised doubts about his mastery of international affairs....

Mr. Trump’s 27% support was his highest showing in Journal/NBC News polling this year and compares to 23% support in the prior survey, in late October. The results continue to defy the expectations of many political analysts and Trump rivals that the celebrity businessman’s candidacy would fade, or at least hit a ceiling, when its novelty wore off.

The poll suggests a new dynamic has arisen in the race, with Mr. Cruz becoming a formidable force. His spike in support-to 22% of GOP primary voters, up from 10% in late October-catapulted him to the poll’s No. 2 spot for the first time since the 2016 campaign began.

Mr. Cruz has been assiduously courting evangelical voters who had also been drawn to Mr. Carson, and the poll suggests his efforts are reaping benefits. Support for Mr. Cruz among “values voters”-those who most strongly support traditional marriage and oppose abortion rights-increased to 27%, from 14% in October. Meanwhile for Mr. Carson, support among those voters dropped to 14%, from 34% in October.

Similarly, Mr. Cruz’s support among voters who call themselves “very conservative’’ rose by 23 percentage points, while Mr. Carson’s support among that group dropped by 23 points....

The poll offered little ground for cheer for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, long ago considered the party’s front-runner, who like the rest of the field remained stuck with single-digit support....

The poll also tested what would happen if the field narrowed to only five candidates: Messrs. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Bush.


The result did not shake up the field’s rank order, as each of the five gained some support in the shakeout. But the candidate who gained the most in a hypothetical five-person field was Mr. Rubio, whose vote share came in at 21%, up 6 percentage points from his support on the full, 10-candidate ballot....

The poll was conducted last Sunday through Wednesday, Dec. 6-9, both before and after Mr. Trump first made his controversial proposal last Monday to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. In results released late last week, the poll found that 57% of Americans opposed Mr. Trump’s proposal, while GOP voters were more divided over it, with 38% supporting it and 39% opposed."...

[Ed. note: Bloomberg poll found 2/3 of GOP approved, 12/9/15, "Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two -Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban," Bloomberg, John McCormick]

(continuing): "Some Trump supporters said the proposal was emblematic of what they liked about him.

We’re in danger,” said Michelle Parker, 50, a registered nurse from Sheridan, Wyoming, who supports Mr. Trump. “We need people to stand up. And you know, Trump is standing up.

The survey of 1,000 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Additional interviews on some questions were conducted on an additional sample of past GOP primary voters, in order to increase to 400 the number of Republican primary voters in the survey. Results from that sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
 

Some questions were added after Mr. Trump on Monday proposed barring Muslims from entry to the U.S. They were answered by 495 respondents on Dec. 8-9 and carry a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points." 





















Images from Wall St. Journal

=============
.....................................
......................

Following is Donald Trump's 12/7/15 press release about protecting America and its residents:

12/7/15, "Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration," New York, NY

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women. 

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump"

............
=========

Added: "Again and again, the American people are forced to confront the fact that its ruling class is not on its side." Codevilla

Oct. 20, 2011, "The Lost Decade," Angelo Codevilla (years 2001-2011)

(scroll to subhead) "Public Safety"

"Solidity of the home front, i.e., mutual trust between the people and their government, has to be statecraft's paramount priority. But the assumption on which our ruling class based its approach to internal security against terrorism-namely, that it is impossible to distinguish ordinary Americans from terrorists—negates the basis for mutual trust. Ordinary Americans, on whom the government imposed ever more intrusive security measures and whom it scolded for being "Islamophobes," reasonably felt that government might regard them as "violent extremists." Our rulers also went out of their way to appease the most unfriendly parts of America's tiny Islamic population, including seeking advice on the proper attitude to take toward Muslims from the transparently anti-American Council On American Islamic Relations. But this simply gave such people more power to further their agendas, while foisting upon the American people a dispiriting political correctness. How could anyone have imagined that any people would not lose confidence in elites that seemed arguably more solicitous of enemies than of fellow citizens?
 
What would have happened if, instead, our ruling class had approached the problem of internal security by reminding itself that the American people had secured American society very adequately during World War II and the Cold War, against enemies far more potent and who blended into American society more easily than contemporary terrorists ever could? Honesty would also have required admitting that the hijackers of 9/11 were able to succeed partly because the U.S. government had trained a generation of Americans not to interfere with hijackings....Our rulers might have paid attention to Alexis de Tocqueville's observation that America was much less policed than Europe, but suffered from less crime because ordinary citizens took public safety into their own hands.

Only with difficulty can we imagine post-9/11 America...minus the TSA screeners (whose uselessness is demonstrated by every "red team" test penetration). But we don't have to imagine that the passengers of Flight 93 took matters into their own hands the moment they realized that government rules were costing them their lives, and that, ever since, aircraft passengers have policed their flights with absolute efficiency. Nor do we have to imagine that ordinary Americans naturally recoil from and protect themselves against persons who display the kind of foreignness and animosity that Islamists and their sympathizers cannot hide. The 2006 case of "the flying Imams" showed the Imams' threatening behavior caused ordinary Americans to remove them from a flight and hence from the possibility of doing harm. Unfortunately, it also showed that the U.S. government came close to making the Americans' immunological behavior liable to civil penalties. 

Again and again, the American people are forced to confront the fact that its ruling class is not on its side.

After 9/11 President George W. Bush told the American people to go shopping and behave normally. In short: forget that you will never again be free to live as before. Think about money. This advice followed naturally from the government's decision to persist in its ways instead of lifting terrorism's burden from America....It sought to satisfy the American people with the pretend-safety of "homeland security," with images of U.S. troops in combat, and perhaps above all with domestic prosperity fueled by record-low interest rates and massive deficit-spending.

This pretend-prosperity aimed not only to anesthetize criticism of endless war, but also to feed both political parties' many constituencies—the ruling class's standard procedure. Both parties joined in expanding federal guarantees for sub-prime mortgages, subsidies for education, alternative fuels, and countless activities dear to well-connected players. Both parties congratulated themselves for establishing new entitlements for prescription drugs and for medical care for children. When the "great recession" began in 2007 Democrats blamed Republicans' excessive spending on "the wars," while Republicans blamed it on Democrats' excessive spending on everything else. Both are correct, and both are responsible.

Hard Choices

Ten years after 9/11, America is not at peace, is poorer, less civil, and less hopeful. But the experts are in charge as never before.

In the American political marketplace of 2012, the American ruling class's stock is at a historic low....For us to understand how these mostly intelligent people could have made errors so big for so long requires understanding the principles they violated, and the moral as well as the intellectual dimensions of their errors. More difficult yet, both intellectually and morally, is the essential task of explaining the hard choices that will be required to deal with the troubles bequeathed us by this decade of defeat."


==========================

Ellis Island











photo from SaveEllisIsland.org
.....................







....................

Saturday, December 12, 2015

4000 rally for Trump at University of South Carolina-Aiken, Dec. 12, 2015

12/12/15, Aiken, SC, AP


12/12/15, Aiken, SC, You Tube







































12/12/15, Aiken, SC. NY Times






























Trump addressed about 4,000 supporters at the University of South Carolina-Aiken, 12/12/15. 

12/12/15, "Trump focuses on issues, forgoes jabs at 2016 rivals," CBS News, Sopan Deb

"In Aiken, Trump talked about a number of topics that are typically not mainstays of his stump speech. Seated in a packed gymnasium at the University of South Carolina-Aiken, Trump took questions for an hour from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, as part of the Conservative Leadership Project's seventh presidential forum....

Trump answered what he would be looking for in a Supreme Court justice appointee. While saying that the next president might appoint four justices, Trump said "the balance right now has gotten not so good." Trump went on to say to applause that he wanted "strongly conservative" justices and "great scholars" that "respect and admire" our Constitution.

Later in the town hall, Trump said that, on the current bench, he admired "highly underrated" Justice Clarence Thomas because he has been "consistent" and that Justice Samuel Alito is "terrific.""...

12/12/15, Trump, Aiken, SC, AP
















Image captions:

Top image: "A Trump supporter holds a sign before Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a town hall meeting in the Convocation Center on the University of South Carolina Aiken campus Saturday, Dec. 12, 2015, in Aiken, S.C. (AP Photo/Richard Shiro)" 

Second image: You Tube.

Third image: "Supporters of Donald Trump at a speech in Aiken, S.C., this month. Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times." From NY Times article, 12/31/15, "Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat," by Nate Cohn

Fourth image: "Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump answers questions from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, right, at a town hall meeting in the Convocation Center on the University of South Carolina Aiken campus Saturday, Dec. 12, 2015, in Aiken, S.C. (AP Photo/Richard Shiro)"  


======================

12/12/15, Trump, Aiken, SC, You Tube


















=======================

12/12/15, "Donald Trump Campaign Rally in Aiken, South Carolina 12.12.15," You Tube




..................

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout and World War II Air Force pilot born in Brooklyn, finally settling in New Jersey.