The Case for Trump: Conservatives Should Vote for the GOP Nominee
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (25MN READ)
Donald Trump needs a unified Republican party in the homestretch if he is to have any chance left of catching Hillary Clinton — along with winning higher percentages of the college-educated and women than currently support him. But even before the latest revelations from an eleven-year-old Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump crudely talked about women, he had long ago in the primaries gratuitously insulted his more moderate rivals and their supporters. He bragged about his lone-wolf candidacy and claimed that his polls were — and would be — always tremendous — contrary to his present deprecation of them. Is it all that surprising that some in his party and some independents, who felt offended, swear that they will not stoop to vote for him when in extremis he now needs them? Or that party stalwarts protest that they no longer wish to be associated with a malodorous albatross hung around their neck? That question of payback gains importance if the race in the last weeks once again narrows. Trump had by mid September recaptured many of the constituencies that once put John McCain and Mitt Romney within striking distance of Barack Obama. And because Trump has apparently brought back to the Republican cause millions of the old Reagan Democrats, various tea-partiers, and the working classes, and since Hillary Clinton is a far weaker candidate than was Barack Obama, in theory he should have had a better shot to win the popular vote than has any Republican candidate since incumbent president George W. Bush in 2004.
vs. Hillary's Felonies
ROGER KIMBALL (17MN READ)
Early in November 2015, when the 2016 election was still an over-populated free-for-all, I had lunch with a friend who is a member of an endangered species: the conservative, "Scoop Jackson" Democrats. They are very thin on the ground these days, and are vanishingly rare in public life. But once upon a time these patriotic, unashamedly pro-American Democrats provided a life-giving current of realism and sanity to their party. They were strong on defense, pro-labor but also pro-prosperity, and they tended to regard their Republican counterparts not as enemies but as colleagues with whom they had differences of opinion or strategy. As I say, such Democrats are all but extinct today, especially in the corridors of power. My well-connected friend is almost as aghast as I am at the Democrats' lurch to the hard, identity-politics Left. He could not muster any enthusiasm for my candidate — Ted Cruz — but he was not flattering about the two Democrat contenders, either. Bernie Sanders he regarded as insane and Hillary Clinton — whom he knows well — he regarded with that visceral distaste that only close personal acquaintance can impart. At the time, Ted Cruz seemed to be doing well — my how appearances can be deceiving! — and already there were troubling stories about Hillary Clinton's health. I said that I doubted she would be up to the rigors of the campaign, but he replied: she won't need to campaign. She will win the primary and then the election by acclamation.
The Suicidal Republican Party
LEE BOYLAND (4.5MN READ)
The time has come for a change in the Republican Party's leadership. Our current leadership has proven by their actions they no longer represent the party faithful. Looking back, the pattern is obvious. The leadership believes they know better than the members and are willing to throw presidential candidates, backed by the majority of the membership, under the bus. I first witnessed this lunacy the year I first became eligible to vote for president, when the Republican Party abandoned Barry Goldwater. In the last election the party elite selected Romney, a club member, rather than a man like Herman Cain who could have defeated Obama. Now my party is abandoning the nominate candidate who can save America, Donald Trump. Heretofore I have not chosen to leave the Republican Party and become an Independent, because we have an excellent local representative, Congressman Bill Posey, and equally fine elected state and local Republican officials. However, if Mr. Trump is defeated on November 8th, my wife and I definitely plan to leave the party and encourage others to do the same; because the Republican Party will have defied the will of the people it represents and once more defeated their nominated candidate for the office of president. In addition, we will encourage Mr. Trump to form a new party and invite right thinking Republicans and Democrats—patriots—to join.
The Obama-Clinton E-mails
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY (13.5MN READ)
Among the most noteworthy of the hacked e-mails from John Podesta’s accounts is an exchange in which Podesta consults Clinton consigliere Cheryl Mills about the private e-mail exchanges between President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As readers may recall, I have long maintained (see here and here) that the principal reason why Mrs. Clinton was not prosecuted, despite a mountain of evidence that she committed felony mishandling of classified information, is the fact that Obama engaged in the same kind of misconduct. The president’s use of a private, non-secure channel to discuss sensitive matters with high level officials may not have been systematic, as Mrs. Clinton’s was. (Obama’s disturbing use of an alias, however, suggests that Clinton was not the only one he was privately e-mailing.) Nevertheless, the fact that the president was e-mailing Clinton means he not only participated in her misconduct but also that the Obama-Clinton e-mails would have been admissible evidence in any criminal trial of Clinton. For the parties to prove such culpable conduct on the president’s part in a high-profile criminal trial would have been profoundly embarrassing to him, to say the least. Therefore, it was never going to happen. As I’ve noted before, after exclaiming, “How is that not classified?” upon being shown an Obama-Clinton e-mail by the FBI, Hillary’s confidant Huma Abedin asked agents if she could have a copy of the exchange. She obviously realized that if Obama had been communicating on Clinton’s non-secure server system, no one else who had done so was going to be prosecuted for it.
The Press Buries Hillary Clinton's Sins
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL (6MN READ)
If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.
But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven't heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of. It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let's review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency. Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends "can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents." She added: "It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc." A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she'd done wrong. "Everyone wants her to apologize," wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. "And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles' heel."
Nostalgia for Gendarme
ALEXANDER MAISTROVOY (9.5MN READ)
It is difficult to say who will be elected by American people, but the world (except sterile Western Europe) has made its choice. And this choice, in spite of formal logic, is the "racist," "sexist," "imperialist", "Islamophob" Donald Trump. In New York, the President of Egypt el-Sisi has met with Trump and characterized him as a "strong leader." The presidents of the Czech Republic and Hungary, Milos Zeman and Viktor Orban, urged Americans to elect Trump. According to Orban, Trump would be a better leader than Obama, and Zeman compared him with Reagan. Russia, Israel and the Arab monarchies would also like to see Trump in the White house. In India, nationalists sing mantras devoted to Trump. It's not surprising. During the eight years of Obama, Clinton and Kerry's ruling America has become a pariah. It is in isolation, and this is not the "brilliant isolation" of Victorian England. It is a miserable and shameful isolation. You can hardly find a regime now that wouldn't have humiliated the leaders of the once great country and all people of America altogether. In July, 2012 protesters in Egypt, with the connivance of the authorities, threw tomatoes and shoes at Hillary Clinton's motorcade accompanying this action with the shouts "Monica, Monica". The paradox arises from the fact that Clinton was going to meet with Mursi, who was supported by her. Kerry allowed the Egyptians to search him twice before the meetings with al-Sisi, as if he was a second-rate journalist – first time in Cairo in July 2014 and second time in China in September 2016. This humiliation seemed fun to Kerry.
Margaret Sanger Would Be Proud of What Planned Parenthood Has Become
GENEVIEVE WOOD (4MN READ)
Planned Parenthood is about to celebrate its 100th birthday. It's an odd, and frankly grotesque, commemoration for an organization that is responsible itself for ensuring over 7 million babies will never have the opportunity to celebrate even one birthday. Planned Parenthood was founded on Oct. 16, 1916, by population control advocate Margaret Sanger. Though the organization's mission statement today refers to "the fundamental right of each individual" to "manage his or her fertility," Sanger was more honest about her goals in a 1934 article entitled "America Needs a Code for Babies." A few highlights from this eugenics masterpiece include: "The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies ... and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit"; "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood"; "Feeble minded persons ... and others found biologically unfit by authorities ... should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding"; And in her book "Woman and the New Race," Sanger wrote: "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." My guess is Planned Parenthood isn't using any of those warm and fuzzy quotes in its 100th anniversary marketing materials.
The Stillborn Legacy of Barack Obama
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER (5.5MN READ)
Only amid the most bizarre, tawdriest, most addictive election campaign in memory could the real story of 2016 be so effectively obliterated, namely, that with just four months left in the Obama presidency, its two central pillars are collapsing before our eyes: domestically, its radical reform of American health care, a.k.a. Obamacare; and abroad, its radical reorientation of American foreign policy — disengagement marked by diplomacy and multilateralism. On Monday, Bill Clinton called it "the craziest thing in the world." And he was talking about only one crazy aspect of it — the impact on the consumer. Clinton pointed out that small business and hardworking employees ("out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week") are "getting whacked...their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half." This, as the program's entire economic foundation is crumbling. More than half its nonprofit "co-ops" have gone bankrupt. Major health insurers such as Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, having lost millions of dollars, are withdrawing from the exchanges. In one-third of the US, exchanges will have only one insurance provider. Premiums and deductibles are exploding. Even the New York Times blares, "Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive." Young people, refusing to pay disproportionately to subsidize older and sicker patients, are not signing up. As the risk pool becomes increasingly unbalanced, the death spiral accelerates. And the only way to save the system is with massive infusions of tax money.
Trump's Special-Prosecutor Promise
Is Not a Criminalization of Politics
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY (6.5MN READ)
One of the sillier post-debate comments comes from Nicholas Burns of Harvard's Kennedy School, who tweeted: "Threatening to jail a political opponent is anti-democratic and anti-American." Donald Trump did memorably say that Hillary Clinton "would be in jail" if he were president; but what he actually vowed to do was appoint a "special prosecutor" to look into Mrs. Clinton's "situation" — by which he was obviously referring to the e-mail scandal. This is manifestly not a case of banana-republic criminalization of politics. Trump was not threatening to go after Clinton because she has the temerity to oppose him politically. He was committing to have a special prosecutor investigate Clinton for mishandling classified information, destroying government files, and obstruction of justice — criminal misconduct that has nothing to do with being a political adversary of Trump's, and for which others who commit similar felonies go to jail. The Obama administration investigated Mrs. Clinton, at least ostensibly, for over a year. Is Professor Burns saying a politician should only be investigated by her political allies and may otherwise violate the law with impunity?
The Selective Moral Outrage
of the Progressive-Left
MADISON GESIOTTO (3MN READ)
As millions continue to express anger over Donald Trump's leaked audio comments, I cannot help but notice the selectivity of their moral outrage. They claim to be outraged by Mr. Trump's words but not outraged by the words of Hillary Clinton's field organizer, Wylie Mao, who was filmed bragging about being able to grab co-workers behinds without getting fired. They claim to be outraged by Mr. Trump's words but not outraged by former President Bill Clinton's actions. They claim to be outraged by Mr. Trump's words but not outraged by the victim shaming of Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on "The View." Yes, in case you missed it, Ms. Behar called former President Bill Clinton's rape accusers "tramps" after Ms. Goldberg declared Hillary Clinton to be the real "victim" and "the person to whom dirty was done." Of course, this list of hypocrisies goes on, and the moral selectivity could not be more outrageous. Was it not Mrs. Clinton herself who declared, "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," and was it not the left that repeated and embraced this statement for months to come? Apparently, Mrs. Clinton and her supporters were only referring to politically expedient sexual assault survivors, victims that fit in with their liberal rhetoric.
The End of Columbus Day
Is the End of America
DANIEL GREENFIELD (8MN READ)
Columbus may have outfoxed the Spanish court and his rivals, but he is falling victim to the court of political correctness. The explorer who discovered America has become controversial because the very idea of America has become controversial. There are counter-historical claims put forward by Muslim and Chinese scholars claiming that they discovered America first. And there are mobs of fake indigenous activists on every campus to whom the old Italian is as much of a villain as the bearded Uncle Sam. Columbus Day parades are met with protests and some have been minimized or eliminated. In a number of cities Columbus Day was transformed into Indigenous People's Day, which sounds like a Marxist terrorist group's holiday. After making a shambles of his efforts at socialized medicine, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed on to Indigenous People's Day. What began in Berkeley, spread to Denver, Pheonix and Seattle, among other cities. No American state has followed Venezuela's lead in renaming it Día de la Resistencia Indígena, or Day of Indigenous Resistance, which actually is a Marxist terrorist group's holiday, but the whole notion of celebrating the discovery of America has come to be seen as somehow shameful and worst of all, politically incorrect.
Hillary Clinton's Actions Are Worse
Than Donald Trump's Words
THOMAS SOWELL (5MN READ)
Donald Trump's gutter talk about women shows yet again that he is bad news. The problem is that Hillary Clinton is far worse. Trump's talk is indefensible. But Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state, carrying out the Obama administration's foreign policies, have cost many lives in many places, including the American ambassador and others killed in Benghazi. Women have a right to be offended by Trump's words. But women have suffered a far worse fate from Secretary Clinton's and President Obama's actions. Pulling American troops out of Iraq, despite military advice to the contrary, led to the sudden rise of ISIS and their seizing of many women and young girls as sex slaves. A message from one of these women urged the bombing of ISIS. She said she would rather be dead than live the life of a sex slave. Some women who tried to commit suicide and failed have been tortured for trying. Meanwhile, President Obama tried to downplay ISIS with flippant words, by calling them the junior varsity. His half-hearted, foot-dragging military response has allowed ISIS to parade before the world as triumphant conquerors, appealing to disgruntled people in Western countries to carry out terrorist attacks in support of their cause. That is a lot worse than some stupid and gross words by Donald Trump, which even he has had to repudiate. Make no mistake about it. Neither party has a good candidate for president. The choice is between bad and disastrous.
America, You Have No Right
to Judge Donald Trump
D.C. MCALLISTER (13MN READ)
The wizards of smarts in the political arena are telling us Donald Trump's campaign is over because of recently leaked tapes of a private conversation from 2005 that was disparaging to women. The comments are so offensive, they say, he’s not fit for office. From the moment the tapes were made public, the drumbeat to Trump's personal walk of shame began. Politicians who formerly endorsed him fled in terror, not wanting the soiled stain of sexual stigma attached to them. NeverTrumpers descended in holier-than-thou glee as they declared how noble and right they've always been not to support such a despicable man. And the left has been howling like puritanical wolves, condemning him for his immorality and sexist treatment of women. I find this reaction to Trump's private conversation rather ironic. It's ironic coming from a secular culture that long ago declared objective morality dead. It's ironic coming from politicos and media bottom-feeders who defended the abusive and disgusting behavior of Bill Clinton, not when he was a private citizen but when he was a sitting president. It's ironic coming from a Republican political elite that has told its religious base that social and moral issues don't matter in politics. "It's all about the economy, stupid. Leave your morals in the church but don't voice them in the public square."
Oh Puleez! Get Off Your
Politically Correct High Horses
RUTH KING (3MN READ)
Eleven years ago Donald Trump was taped using vulgarity and boasting, like many playboys and locker room machos, about his prowess with women. Disgusting? Sure...but spare me the high dudgeon elicited by strategic release of those tapes, just as Wikileaks revealed more chicanery by Clinton. Even some conservatives have joined the caterwauling declaring that this is proof positive that Trump is not "presidential." Presidential??? That bar was lowered decades ago. Was it presidential when John Kennedy invited Mafia molls to the White House for a roll in the hay? Was it presidential when he and his brother Triborough Fitzgerald Kennedy shared the sexual favors of a pathetic movie star? Was it presidential when his successor, Lyndon Johnson- purveyor of the ruinous entitlement scam known as "The Great Society" showed his class in conducting press conferences from the toilet? Was it presidential when Bill Clinton used government employees to find him sex partners? Or how about his encouragement of a besotted intern to become his er....private server...in the oval office? Ted Kennedy had the gall to attempt a run for the White House and did anyone question whether it was presidential to back off a bridge into water and permit his passenger to drown while he swam away and tried to convince his cousin to take the rap?
FBI Agents Ready to Revolt
Over Cozy Clinton Probe
PAUL SPERRY (5.5MN READ)
Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau's reputation for uncompromising investigations with his "cowardly" whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server. Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too." But agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation. "In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit. Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets. The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails. Comey also agreed to have Mills' laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence.
From Greek Tragedy to American Therapy
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (6MN READ)
The Greeks gave us tragedy — the idea that life is never fair. Terrible stuff for no reason tragically falls on good people. Life's choices are sometimes only between the bad and the far worse. In the plays of the ancient dramatists Aeschylus and Sophocles, heroism and nobility only arise out of tragedies. The tragic hero refuses to blame the gods for his terrible fate. Instead, a Prometheus, Ajax or Oedipus prefers to fight against the odds. He thereby establishes a code of honor, even as defeat looms. In contrast, modern Americans gave the world therapy. Life must always be fair. If not, something or someone must be blamed. All good people deserve only a good life — or else. A nation of victims soon becomes collectively paralyzed in fear of offending someone. Pay down the $20 trillion debt? Reform the unsustainable Social Security system? Ask the 47 percent of the population that pays no income tax to at least pay some? Nope. Victims would allege that such belt-tightening is unfair and impossible — and hurtful to boot. So we do nothing as the rendezvous with financial collapse gets ever closer. Does anyone think a culture of whiners can really build high-speed rail in California? Even its supporters want the noisy tracks built somewhere away from their homes.
Dead Voters & Other Horror Stories
FRANK MIELE (5MN READ)
There is nothing more aggravating in the entire liberal canon than the myth of voter suppression. What exactly is meant by voter suppression? According to most sources, it is the effort to prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote. So what are some examples of that? Best known is the use of photo ID, requiring voters to demonstrate positively that they are the person they claim to be when they vote. But there are many other allegations of how voting is suppressed, such as requiring proof of citizenship. Both of these common-sense requirements are widely characterized by liberals as targeting minorities and immigrants, and we are told repeatedly that minorities don't have access to photo ID or to citizenship papers such as a birth certificate. I don't know about you, but every time I want to get some government service, I have to jump through mandatory hoops to prove my identity and eligibility. That goes for passports, driver licenses, Social Security card replacement — you name it. It never occurred to me to complain that my rights were being violated. In fact, I was grateful for the government taking every possible precaution. In this age of rampant identity theft, scams and fraud, there is no reason to accept anyone's word for anything. Except, it seems, the right to vote! For that all-important privilege of citizenship, we are told that it would be cruel and unusual to expect anyone to have to prove they were eligible.
The FBI's Clinton Email Probe
Looking More Like a Cover-Up
PAUL SPERRY (5MN READ)
It's bad enough that FBI Director James Comey agreed to pass out immunity deals like candy to material witnesses and potential targets of his investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's illegal private email server. But now we learn that some of them were immunized despite lying to Comey's investigators. In the latest bombshell from Congress' probe into what's looking more and more like an FBI whitewash (or cover-up) of criminal behavior by the Democrat nominee and her aides, the Denver-based tech who destroyed subpoenaed emails from Clinton's server allegedly lied to FBI agents after he got an immunity deal. That's normally a felony. As a federal prosecutor, Comey tossed Martha Stewart in jail for it and helped convict Scooter Libby for it as well. Yet the key Clinton witness still maintained his protection from criminal prosecution. With Comey's blessing, Obama prosecutors cut the deal with the email administrator, Paul Combetta, in 2015 in exchange for his full cooperation and honest testimony. But the House Judiciary Committee revealed Wednesday that he falsely told agents in a Feb. 18 interview that he had no knowledge that emails he bleached from the server were under congressional orders to be preserved as evidence. In a second interview on May 3, Combetta admitted he in fact did know. But he still refused to reveal what he discussed with Clinton's former aides and lawyer during a 2014 conference call about deleting the emails.
Muslims Are Not Jews
TABITHA KOROL (10MN READ)
When Nicholas Kristof, a writer for the New York Times, wrote Anne Frank today is a Syrian girl, he was publicizing his own distorted view that all immigrants are equal, period. He compared the dilemma of the Jewish Holocaust victims' flight from imminent torture and extermination by the Nazis and collaborating European regimes with the experience and intent of the Syrian migrants. By failing to conscientiously compare the people, their circumstances, and the ultimate purpose of their migration, he failed as a journalist and went headlong into moral equivalence. Kristof is presenting the migratory Muslims in the role of hunted Jews! Claiming two situations equal on the basis of superficialities is due to either lazy thinking or outright deceit. Beginning with the discovery of a World War II letter penned by Otto Frank (father of Anne Frank), who sought a visa out of Amsterdam to any country that offered safety for himself and his family, Kristof pointed out the West's indifference to Jewish refugees at that time. Far from being an awakening of sympathy, however; he was preparing his readers to accept a comparative analysis between the reluctant, meager acceptance of the Jews in their desperate flight from certain annihilation and the extravagant welcoming of Islamic migrants who bring with them an ideology calamitous to democracy. The records show that of the Jews who fled Europe during the Holocaust, America accepted only 95.000 Jews in 1939, before the doors closed and Jews were banned from leaving Germany (October, 1941).
Obama, Gates Work to
Dissolve Suburban School Districts
STANLEY KURTZ (3MN READ)
AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing), President Obama’s most radical regulation, continues to go virtually unmentioned in the campaign. You might think a policy that allows big cities to swallow up and control surrounding suburbs would be widely debated and discussed, especially in an election where the suburbs hold the balance of power. Instead, both presidential candidates make a point of avoiding the issue. Meanwhile, it’s become increasingly clear that AFFH is about a great deal more than housing. In truth, this sweepingly transformative regulation creates levers by which the feds can reach into almost every aspect of local government. In the latest development, AFFH has been revealed as a play to nullify the boundaries of suburban school districts. If President Obama and his allies have their way, the locally controlled suburban school will soon be a thing of the past. In 2012, when I published Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, I predicted that Obama would use government funding as a lever to effectively dissolve suburban school districts, redistributing their revenues to nearby cities and forcing them to import students from outside the district. Now a “Dear Colleague” letter from three Obama cabinet secretaries makes it clear that AFFH is going to be used for precisely these purposes.
The Next President Unbound
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (6MN READ)
Donald Trump’s supporters see a potential Hillary Clinton victory in November as the end of any conservative chance to restore small government, constitutional protections, fiscal sanity, and personal liberty. Clinton’s progressives swear that a Trump victory would spell the implosion of America as they know it, alleging Trump parallels with every dictator from Josef Stalin to Adolf Hitler. Part of the frenzy over 2016 as a make-or-break election is because a closely divided Senate’s future may hinge on the coattails of the presidential winner. An aging Supreme Court may also translate into perhaps three to four court picks for the next president. Yet such considerations only partly explain the current election frenzy. The model of the imperial Obama presidency is the greater fear. Over the last eight years, Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades. Congress talks grandly of “comprehensive immigration reform,” but Obama, as he promised with his pen and phone, bypassed the House and Senate to virtually open the border with Mexico. He largely ceased deportations of undocumented immigrants. He issued executive-order amnesties. And he allowed entire cities to be exempt from federal immigration law. The press said nothing about this extraordinary overreach of presidential power, mainly because these largely illegal means were used to achieve the progressive ends favored by many journalists.
Understanding Radical Islam
PAUL R. HOLLRAH (12.5MN READ)
On Saturday evening, September 20, 2016, a pressure cooker bomb exploded in a dumpster in New York's Chelsea district. The bomb was powerful enough to blow the heavy steel container more than 120 feet through the air and metal fragments from the explosion were found more than 600 feet away. Thirty-one people were injured. Within hours, NYPD officers found the bomber, radical Islamist Ahmad Khan Rahami, asleep in a doorway. After a brief exchange of gunfire, Rahami was arrested and taken into custody. In a subsequent interview, Rahami's father explained that, in 2014, he informed New Jersey police that his son was a terrorist. The father explained, "Two years ago I go to the FBI because my son was doing really bad, OK? But they check almost two months, they say, ‘He's OK, he's clean, he's not a terrorist.' I say OK...Now they say he is a terrorist. I say OK." It is a story that is repeated time and time again. The once highly-touted FBI, as symbolized by men such as J. Edgar Hoover and Elliott Ness, and as portrayed by Efrem Zimbalist. Jr. in the long-running television series, The FBI, has suffered a major loss of credibility in recent decades. The bureau's unprofessional mishandling of episodes such as Ruby Ridge, Idaho; the Branch Davidian siege at Waco, Texas; the Oklahoma City bombing, and, most recently, the politically tainted bungling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, has caused the bureau to lose much of its reputation as the world's foremost law enforcement agency.
How Donald Trump Changed
the World in One Year
BEBE COE BERTINO (6.5MN READ)
Last night a friend claimed that Donald Trump wouldn't make a good president; he is brash, he is racist, he is a loudmouth; you know the normal things people learn to recite after being programmed by television news. The one I loved was that, "Trump is arrogant." My friend questioned if one man could make "that much difference in the world today." To my friend's credit, she was respectful enough to let me respond when she asked, "Really, what has Trump done?" I said, "In June of last year, Trump entered the race for president. In just a little over a year, Trump has single handedly defeated the Republican party. He did so thoroughly. In fact, he did so in such a resounding way that the Republican Party now suffers from an identity crisis. He literally dismantled the party. Trump even dismantled and dismissed the brand and value of the Bush family. Trump has Obama petrified that Trump will dismiss programs that weren't properly installed using proper law. Trump has single handedly debunked and disemboweled any value of news media as we knew it—news now suffering from an all-time level of distrust and disrespect. Trump has leaders from all over the world talking about him, whether good or bad. Trust me, powerful men who have been president before weren't liked by the global community. I doubt Mikhail Gorbachev liked Reagan when Reagan said, "Tear down that wall."