Jessica Drake – Educator

Comment:

* Wikipedia says, “Jessica Drake (born October 14, 1974) is the stage name of an American pornographic actress and sex educator.”

Wow, who knew that getting boinked on camera for a living was a ticket into becoming an “educator”. And here my niece went to school for five years!

* Gives new meaning to the phrase “school of hard knocks.”

* Edge in what? Believability? Do you think Drake’s accusation is more credible than Hayek’s?

* Desirability, dear fellow. 5’8 Anglo vs 5’1.5 swarthy Mexican dwarf. I Still think that 10,000 seems excessive, though. Perhaps Trump was a fan of her work?

Posted in Pornography | Comments Off on Jessica Drake – Educator

The Hamilton Phenomenon

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The Hamilton phenomenon says something weird about the elite psyche. Surely, without the minority angle, nothing about the Founding Fathers would ever seem cool and become a cultural phenomenon. By casting everyone as non-white and making it into a rap video, educated Americans of all political persuasions, Republicans and Democrats, can come together and celebrate a shared history. The dark cast removes the stain of whiteness that is there throughout European and American history.

* Hamilton is a good signal to determine those who are in the elite and those who aspire to be in the elite. I know some people my age (20s) who want nothing more than to see this play. They have the soundtrack, read the Ron Chernow book, and talk about how Miranda is a genius yet they have not seen the play themselves, since they are still broke and paying their massive student loans. It’s really weird to witness but easy to figure out why. Going to or wanting to go see Hamilton is an excellent virtue/progressive signal, maybe the best one out there now since too many people own a Prius.

* Unlike our current crop of pro-plutocrats, however, Alexander Hamilton was most decidedly not pro-immigration:

The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

* The rock musical Rent (Broadway debut 1996), principally about living with AIDS/HIV, had a very similar vanity-signaling effect on the culture at the time. It was the must-see/hot ticket show for a number a years. It ran for 12 years on Broadway.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Hamilton Phenomenon

Tabletmag: MONDOWEISS LAUNCHES ANTI-SEMITIC ATTACK ON NEW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF ‘THE ATLANTIC’

I am grateful for the headline. That way I know who to root for in the story.

Yair Rosenberg writes for Tabletmag:

Earlier this month, The Atlantic announced the appointment of longtime reporter Jeffrey Goldberg as its 14th editor-in-chief. As the publication’s press release noted, Goldberg has written 11 cover stories for the magazine, and interviewed an impressive array of world leaders, including President Obama, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Britain’s David Cameron, Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Jordan’s King Abdullah.

Across the political and media spectrum, most cheered Goldberg’s appointment. As Conor Friedersdorf, an Atlantic writer who has often differed with Goldberg politically, put it, “[he] subscribes to the core values that enable the finest work we produce.” At the same time, some criticized the choice on account of Goldberg’s prior support for the Iraq war, and his perceived interventionist bent on matters of foreign policy.

And then there was the anti-Israel hub Mondoweiss, which attacked the appointment because it whitewashed the fact that Goldberg was a Jew.

Gosh, that sounds awful. Let me have a look at that awful awful Mondoweiss piece:

Today’s breathtaking announcement by Atlantic media’s owner David Bradley that Jeffrey Goldberg will become editor-in-chief is curious not for the accolades it showers on the star writer — “no greater journalist writing in the country today” — but for the laundering it does of his resume.

There is no mention of his one book about Israel, Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror. No mention of the fact that Goldberg emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces as a corporal. No mention of his Iraq war resume, giving America grounds for invasion with bad reports on Saddam’s connections to Al Qaeda and his manufacture of chemical weapons. No mention of Goldberg’s substantial Israel portfolio. The word Israel appears only once in the announcement, in the delectable phrase, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

It would seem that both the Atlantic and Goldberg are determined to pivot and rebrand. I’m no longer the go-to expert on Israel, no longer the war-drum-beater who told the world that Israel was about to attack Iran, I’m no longer the most powerful Jewish reporter in the country. I’m Jeffrey Goldberg, American editor in a literary line that goes back to Hawthorne, Emerson and Robert Frost. And so much for the fearful anti-semitism of my youth; I’m past all that.

Bradley says that “Jeff’s best-known writing” is “long-form narrative for the print magazine.” Well that’s not entirely accurate. Narrative has never been as important to Goldberg as information and driving an argument. And he is surely best known today for his writing about the Middle East, notably those flat tires in Iraq and his promotion of Israel, like his first and only book.

The media establishment is today a self-protection racket, for all the journalists who supported the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. “In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality” — Jeffrey Goldberg said that in 2002, Yousef Munayyer reminds us today.

Goldberg has appeared at numerous Zionist events, for instance the American Jewish Committee conference, and Zionism 3.0, where he was introduced by Charlotte Halle, English edition editor at Haaretz, as “for many, the preeminent voice among American Jews.”

The word Jew made no appearance in the Atlantic announcement. Here’s the cleansed resume paragraph from Atlantic media:

As background only, here is Jeff’s story in brief: raised in New York, Jeff attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he edited the Daily Pennsylvanian. Beginning his career as a crime reporter for The Washington Post, Jeff moved through The Jerusalem Post, The Forward, New York magazine, The New York Times Magazine and The New Yorker. Jeff joined The Atlantic in 2007. Across his nearly-10 years with us, Jeff has written many of our most-successful cover stories, including this year’s “The Obama Doctrine,” and has interviewed many world leaders on our behalf including King Abdullah of Jordan, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and the former British Prime Minister David Cameron.

For the record, Goldberg made aliyah to Israel in his early 20s (30 years ago) and spent several years in Israel. “The Diaspora was the disease, and Israel was the cure,” he wrote in his book. He felt that a red river of anti-semitism flowed just under the surface of American life, and even after he decided to come back stated that America was “unhealthy for Jews and Judaism.” He came back because he realized he wasn’t all that comfortable with Israeli culture, and because he was journalistically ambitious, which is of course no crime.

Goldberg said when his book came out in 2006 — “I love Israel, with all its flaws. I’m deeply committed to its safety and its future” — and he demonstrated as much with all his reporting that promoted the American involvement in Israel’s battles in the Middle East. Like the famous Point of No Return in the Atlantic in 2010, which pressured the United States to take action against Iran before Israel launched its jets within the next year. That article was one of several that earned him the reputation that even his colleague Robert Wright noted: a “channel” for Benjamin Netanyahu.

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, that is. Just in case you all forgot who Benjamin Netanyahu was…

Not long ago (2011) Goldberg observed, shrewdly (and he’s nothing if not shrewd), that while he vehemently disagrees with the left’s position that Zionism is a settler ideology, the left “has the wind at its back.” Five years have passed, and the wind has become a simoom: we’re in the 50th year of the occupation and leading Israel Zionists talk fearfully about growing fascism in Israel and on September 29, as he was negotiating this job, Goldberg at last cashiered Netanyahu with a piece in the Atlantic titled the “Unbearable Smallness of Netanyahu.”

Seems like Goldberg has chosen just the right time to pivot.

Steve Sailer writes: “Brooklyn-born former Israeli army prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg has been named editor of The Atlantic, capping a memorable journalistic career of succeeding by failing. Goldberg is one of the many advocates of the U.S. Iraq Attaq of 2003 whose careers haven’t been hurt at all by helping plunge his country (or co-country) into an utterly unnecessary foreign policy catastrophe…”

“Unlike Editor Goldberg, I don’t have a co-country. So I take it personally when my fellow Americans get slaughtered due to the conventional wisdom of Invade the World / Invite the World.”

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* In 2002, I read Scott Ritter’s little book on Iraq, which as I recall basically predicted everything that has happened since then: ethnic cleansing and Sunni-Shiite conflict, a dangerous quagmire for US soldiers, and a completely destabilized Middle East and ascendant Islamism. He was convicted later of exposing himself online to a federal agent who claimed as part of a sting operation to be 15. He obviously has issues, but it sounded to me plausible he might have been deliberately targeted by people who knew his peccadilloes and wanted payback for opposing the Consensus.

* David Remnick should write the Jeff Goldberg story: about how a lowly Israeli prison guard fulfilled the destiny of his race by ultimately editing the magazine of Emerson, Holmes, and Longfellow and turning it into even more of a critical studies clickbait factory.

* It is remarkable how, post 2001, some Jews have pushed their own peculiar agenda and their own particular ethnic interests off on this country, without even feeling the need to disguise it much. I guess the rest (the interests of gentiles) is just commentary.

* Goldberg served his country (his actual country, that is) by standing guard over captured rock-throwers, so I’ve no doubt that he’s a very brave man. He also suffered at the hands of “juvenile pogromists” on Long Island (his wikipedia page makes for rather funny reading).

* I don’t see the problem. He clubbed Palestinians over the head to protect Israeli nationalism. Now he’ll be clubbing Americans over the head to prevent American nationalism. All in the name of Jewish Supremacy.

* Interestingly, Jeffrey Goldberg, Stephen Glass, and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, are all Penn graduates and wrote for the school newspaper there. What an incubator!

Although he didn’t attend Penn, “award-winning” journalist and longtime editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, was also a strong advocate of Iraq Attaq; and now almost 15 years later we’re getting advice from him on Russia. It also appears that his wife and son work at the NYT.

I have a feeling that earlier this year, President Obama decided to grant Jeffrey Goldberg all that Air Force One interview time for some of the same reasons that Fidel Castro chose him for a chat back in 2010: Jeffrey Goldberg is just a lot of fun to have around and he gives really great advice…

* Goldberg’s Wikipedia page quoutes him on his hatred for the “Irish pogromists” who made his adolescence on Long Island miserable and how he says that’s why he fell in love with Israeli muscle-flexing.

* In Goldberg’s mind, nationalism is a privilege reserved for Israel.

* As far back as 1965 I became convinced that The Atlantic was a front publication for America’s intelligence community. The content was sophisticated but was always just a little off, a little not quite right. I confess that my opinion was based on nothing more than my reading between the lines of the magazine. Yet, in over fifty years I have found nothing that changed that early opinion. Appointing Jeffry Goldberg editor only confirms my long-standing belief. Move along! Nothing to see here.

* I have no idea how the editor of The Atlantic gets chosen, but of all their regulars, Goldberg has always been the one to write the most blinkered and provincial articles-all Israel, all Zionism, all the time.

Of course, I exaggerate, but as with many other public intellectuals of his tribe, a lot of America simply doesn’t exist in this guys’ mental landscape. And much of their writing is cogitation of a certain specialized hair-splitting type that feels far removed from the historical Anglo-Saxon mindset.

Even in today’s Atlantic, much of Goldberg’s stylistically undistinguised writing comes across as that of an outsider nerd banging on about his special concern, a lot like Coates. Unlike the New York Times, The Atlantic’s print edition still doesn’t come across as (((The Atlantic))).

How did Goldberg get the job? Where do the reins of power at The Atlantic lead and who holds them?

* People have been speculating about George Plimpton’s Paris Review literary mag for a long time.

I would want to be on George Plimpton’s side.

I’ve never seen anybody make the accusation, but Tom Wolfe’s Ph.D. is from Ground Zero of CIA recruitment: the American Studies program at Yale.

* I forgot that Jacob Weisberg was for the Iraq War. And then he spent the next 6 years collecting his “Bushisms” mocking W’s speech.

* I think Mickey Kaus might have been against it. At the least, he was not really for it. Kaus is (to my mind) a sensible guy, and one of the better, more lucid writers, who was ever at Slate – an E-zine that went rapidly down hill after Michael Kinsley left it. Like NPR, it now exists as a parody of itself.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Jeffrey Goldberg | Comments Off on Tabletmag: MONDOWEISS LAUNCHES ANTI-SEMITIC ATTACK ON NEW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF ‘THE ATLANTIC’

Systematic Racism!

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* It’s absolutely the biggest conspiracy theory of all time.

The best part is, it’s actually the current scientific hypothesis for why there are different outcomes between the races! This is how bad the social sciences are in the west. A conspiracy about how white people keep down minorities (except Asians) because they just hate their skin color is the best theory that they can come up with.

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t for the consequences of policies made from this idea.

* What is systemic racism, really? It is the logical result of an absolute denial to accept group-related genetic differences. The logical equation is this: all groups of humans are equal in their abilities and temperaments, humans of groups differ in their outcomes on significant life measures, so some force must be affecting the ability of some groups of humans to translate abilities and temperaments into desirable outcomes on significant life measures. Since that force cannot be genetic, it’s called systemic racism.

The same principle applies in physics to dark matter. Something is affecting the model, it acts in certain ways, so lets just identify it. The difference between systemic racism and dark matter is that systemic racism has an obvious alternative theory, which is a genetic tendency toward economic capability that is largely correlated with continental ancestry.

* Respectable Opinion is full of conspiracy theories. The Holocaust is a conspiracy theory. I’ve read books that all but theorized Hitler communicated with Himmler and Himmler with his subordinates through telepathy. But that’s something regular people accept, and is useful to the ruling class, so it’s okay.

There’s something, a little, little something, to the negative connotation to the label “conspiracy theory.” Because once you start doubting the Narrative, once you swallow the red pill, you have kicked loose from the earth, with nothing either above or below you but the array of Crazy/Evil Opinion. It’s hard. You can easily fall into actual, not pretend, crazy territory. Because you don’t know what to believe. The divine right of kingship? Okay. The dictatorship of the proletariat? Why not?

At least with the blue pill you’re spared the effort, and can choose between preselected options. Like a supermarket. Freedom is hard.

* When are people going to start asking the most pertinent question of all:

“What’s so bad about racism in the first place?”

* To me the pseudo-science of systemic racism resembles a tautology, one that hangs together with the pseudo-legal concept of disparate impact, thus:

Where (you think) there is disparate impact, there is systemic racism. Where (you think) there is systemic racism, there is disparate impact.

All of this is made possible by the tabula rasa postulate, which states that all humans are equivalent blank slates.

In other words, all differences in human outcomes can be explained by racism.

Couple this with the fact that schools are now teaching two additional postulates, 1) All white people are racists, and 2) Nobody else is, and then you arrive at the corollary: Everything is white people’s fault.

Thus the conclusion: All failures of everyone else to achieve as much as white people are disparate impacts caused by systemic racism.

It’s all one big circle jerk.

* Right now, I’m sitting in a diner, waiting for my lunch. The TV set above my head is tuned to ESPN. (Mercifully, the sound is off.)

ESPN has suspended all regular programming for marathon coverage of the Josh Brown (a white football player) domestic-abuse situation. (Josh Brown is a white football player – a kicker.) Josh Brown – did I mention that he is white? – is a wife-beater. Josh Brown, a white guy, needs to change his name, because he is not a noble brown man – he is as white as a bedsheet.

Whites are rapists – look at that drunk swimmer who fingered that smashed girl! Whites are wife-beaters – look at Josh Brown!

Whites are evil.

Now they’re showing a jeans commercial. But I’m sure they’ll be all over the Josh Brown situation when they come back.

* Invisible racism is such a powerful force it operates backwards through time, retarding negroes in the past who had no idea whites even existed. How else to explain Africa always having been backwards?

Posted in America | Comments Off on Systematic Racism!

Monsieur Hulot and the Flynn Effect

Steve Sailer writes: Here’s a photo from 1966 of my father and I trying to recreate the famous poster shot from Mon Oncle on my dad’s new Honda 90:

honda-90

For decades, this photo and the uncharacteristically carefree expression on my worrywart dad’s face were vaguely associated in my mind with the words “French comedian.”

COMMENTS:

* That’s colossally depressing but largely true. That old Paris is not completely dead, but dies a little more every year.

It is really painful to see photos of great western cities during the West’s long 1880-1970 peak. We’ve got better phones and better TV shows, but living in a safe central city among your own people is something we no longer can do.

Western whites no longer engage in the big building projects we once did. So many grand marble buildings in cities like Detroit, built to last 300 years, had to be abandoned after about 30-40 years. Now we know better, that building houses and schools that will be useful for hundreds of years by our descendants is a waste. They will be nice places for a few decades, then on to the suburb another 8 miles away from the growing underclass dominated city and older suburbs.

My parents certainly could not have sent me to the public schools they went to and their parents paid very good money to build.

I watched a few French language movies recently. Almost all the movies I watch are historical dramas involving war or politics, including all of these:

1. The Battle of Algiers – Great movie, I think this was the third time I watched it.

2. Army of Crime – Good recent movie about a Resistance cell in Paris that engages in some successful terrorist attacks before they are all caught, tortured and executed. Also based on historical events. It had a fairly big budget and has some great sets showing working class Paris in 1940-41, complete with plenty of chicken and horses, as well as portraying the relationship between the public, French collaborators, and the German army in Occupied France. Lots of fun chases, explosions, capers, gunfire, etc.

3. Au revoir les enfants – Great movie too, probably too pro-((())) for many iSteve readers. But hey, you can always just root for the Nazis. I know I was rooting for the French army in the Battle of Algiers against the filmmakers’ intentions! It is interesting to see that an upper-class boarding school’s conditions were pretty primitive compared to a lower class school today.

4. Le Roi Danse – A recent big-budget movie about Louis XIV’s earlier years. I quit watching about 2/3 of the way through. It wasn’t horrible and had some good moments, and lots of expensive and pretty sets, but kind of slow paced and lacking in any action.

5. Danton – Great movie with a young Gérard Depardieu as the lead.

6. The Dreamers – Rated NC-17 for good reason. Partly in English. Not for everyone, but I liked it a lot, nobody makes movies like it in the USA. The basic plot during the near-revolution in 1968 an American student in Paris becomes friends with some weird French twins who may or may not be in an incestuous relationship with each other. The twins’ large and slightly shabby Paris mansion and literary icon father are right out of Wes Anderson’s Royal Tennanbaums and Squid and the Whale.

The next movie I will watch is also foreign, this time Swedish, the big budget multi-part Arn, about some crusaders.

Posted in Steve Sailer | Comments Off on Monsieur Hulot and the Flynn Effect

Full monologue: Donald Trump roasts Hillary Clinton at Al Smith charity dinner

RUSH LIMBAUGH: “I must, by the way, change. I said everybody looked like they were wearing a corset last night. Other than Maria Bartiromo. The rackage on display there obviously was not constrained by a corset.”

TMZ: While Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton went HAM on each other during the NYC roast/charity dinner … they were also getting upstaged by a pair of famous boobs that were expertly placed.
The Internet was rightfully distracted by Maria Bartiromo’s cleavage, which was in every shot behind the candidates at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. Organizers of the event tell us it was no mistake the FOX Business host was umm … prominently displayed.
We’re told the 70 people on the 5-tier dais were assigned seats to balance out people from politics, media, business and philanthropy. Obviously, Maria checks the media and business boxes.
Despite all visual evidence, we’re told she did NOT get the prime seat due to her fame, or her dress. Sooo … we just got lucky.

COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:

* Hillary of course got through her speech with nothing more than silence at lame jokes, while midway through the Trump speech the liberals start booing. In every context they prove their intolerance, and their inability to relax even for a second and not politicize everything.

* The “elite” in that room can go ahead and be shocked but Trump’s “no f**ks given” style is the sort of thing men said back when they wore such clothes unironically. Charles Stewart Parnell and Lord Randolph Churchill would have said equally lively things in their white tie and tails. So would FDR, JFK and perhaps even John Foster Dulles if they’d been presented with Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner’s peer group. They’d be cheering on the scrappy guy from Queens with the cabbie’s accent if they were in that room last night. Hillary, Obama and their fans want to destroy everything those white ties, silk gloves and jewelled crucifixes represent.

If Trump is ruining anything, he’s ruining the evening of a pack of cultural saboteurs and Judases try to have their cake and eat it too. Trump was simply bringing back the realness. This is what politics looks like when it’s real. Trump is the Great American Vermifuge just working his way through the system.

* Madame went through the gamut of her facial expressions: the frozen smile, the cheeky-faced pursed lips and, of course, the ever-present smirk.

If you look carefully there are outlines of “The Joker” in some of her expressions.

* When you compare Juanita Broaddrick’s description of her encounter with Hillary (far more relevant now than the one with Bill) with California’s apparently strict current law covering “dissuading a victim”, presumably stricter than Arkansas’s in 1979, it seems she expertly walked right up to the legal line on intimidation without technically crossing it.

A textbook case of plausible deniability.

Any legal minds here?

* What did Trump say? Beautiful big-boobed Bartiromo was too damn distracting!

Isn’t it funny how Trump goes for that Eastern European look rather than that dark, Mediterranean look. I mean, Melania’s beautiful, but look at 49-year old Bartiromo! On Stern a few years ago Trump talked about all the 10′s from Latin American countries. But as a young man (going for Ivana) to an older guy (going for Melania) his tastes have stayed the same. My tastes went from blond Scandinavian in my teens to dark/Asian in my 30′s.

* Our Masters are not amused. Look at their faces when he speaks the truth. This is devastating.

* Trump calling out the Pharisees in the Temple. Pretty amazing.

* I saw that too, but only because I am excessively dirty-minded.

That visual would never happen anyway, because Hillary is homosexual. I have read enough by now to be 99% certain of that. Almost all media is ignoring this fact, for what I think are a variety of reasons, such as:

1) Many voters would be turned off by it, and therefore they would refuse to help make her media-assisted coronation happen.

2) “Mrs.” Clinton’s fellow lesbians, and most others in her LGB XYZ EE I EE I OH community would be very upset that she had remained in the closet all these years while many of them bravely came out.

3) It would make it painfully obvious to everyone that Bill has just been her beard all these years (which is why she always has tacitly approved of his extracurricular activities).

* I’m sure Trump keeps a Hillary lesbian sex-tape or other type of lesbian evidence in case he needs to go full nuclear on Dems, or save his life and businesses in case he loses.
In any case the “intelligence community” must have all the goods on Huma Abedin. Thus far we only got to see his husband’s weiner. No need to explain why.

* She wasn’t the least grotesque physically earlier in her life. Just a basic bitch with an irritating voice. It’s the attempt to make her look 45 when she’s a poorly preserved 68 that has made her, as you describe, a thing of horror.

* I realize that the crowd turned him once he really started in on her, and he got boos or very muffled applause thereafter, but I think this was one of his most effective public speeches yet. It doesn’t matter what the people at the dinner thought, it matters what the people watching thought. And he did two really good things in that respect. First, he made it memorable, so it will get lots of air time (have any of you actually watched the entire dinner before? I haven’t). Second, he landed some solid hits:
“Pardon me”
“How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission?”
“here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics”
“And all of the jokes were given to her in advance of the dinner by Donna Brazile.”

* I’ll believe there’s genuine animosity between Donald and Hillary when Ivanka and Chelsea break up.

* Somebody has posted an edited version of the Red Dinner on Reddit, I foresee plenty of memes coming…

Posted in Donald Trump, Maria Bartiromo | Comments Off on Full monologue: Donald Trump roasts Hillary Clinton at Al Smith charity dinner

Can America Buy Israel Another 40 Years?

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off on Can America Buy Israel Another 40 Years?

More Than 250 Female Rabbis Condemn Trump For Hate Speech

Posted in America, Rabbis | Comments Off on More Than 250 Female Rabbis Condemn Trump For Hate Speech

WP: Washington’s foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

The only member of Obama’s foreign policy team in his first term who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq was Barack Obama himself. There’s little difference between liberal interventionism and neo-conservatism. All sides of America’s political establishment like to meddle overseas. They just use different rhetoric to justify it.

Donald Trump is against America intervening overseas unless it is in America’s national interests. He doesn’t want to nation-build and launch wars for democracy.

Washington Post:

There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.

The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflect a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.

This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on WP: Washington’s foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

Common Republican Misconceptions About Donald Trump

A friend says: One of the bigger misconceptions among the Republican critics of Trump is the assertion that had the Republicans nominated anyone other than Trump that candidate would be cruising to victory over Hillary Clinton.

Aside from the scandals that may have been uncovered regarding any of the other Republican aspirants, the fact remains that with the sole exception of Cruz, who is unelectable for other reasons, the remaining candidates hewed to the neo-conservative foreign policy and military adventurism that was discredited by Bush – Cheney, and refused to take a hardline on immigration, arguably the most important issue within the Republican primary. Mickey Kaus consistently stated that if the Republican establishment wanted to defeat Trump all it had to do was embrace an enforcement first immigration policy and rule out amnesty. However, the Republican establishment wouldn’t give on this issue.

Cruz is the darling of the “constitutionalists” and the religious right, but those make up perhaps 25% of the Republican voters and an even smaller percentage of the national electorate. Aside from his personal issues (no one who works with him in the senate can stand him) his reputation as an opportunistic grandstander, his actual policy positions, especially on social issues, are way outside the mainstream of the U.S. today and perhaps even outside the mainstream in Eisenhower’s America.

Trump, on the other hand has done something that no other Republican (with the possible exception of Reagan) has done in terms of rallying white working class, lower class and middle class Americans who are feeling displaced by the actions of the Democratic party in its unbridled pursuit of identity politics. Trump has also taken social issues off the table despite the Democrat’s success in labeling him misogynistic. He hasn’t spoken out against same sex marriage. He hasn’t even opposed transsexual’s using the toilets of the sex they supposedly identify with and he has cast his opposition to Muslim immigration as one that protects gays. He has done this without alienating his religious right backers. His position on trade, protectionism, and immigration are widely popular. The reason he is losing in the majority of polls (there are two groups of polls: IBD, Rasmussen and the L.A. Times have the race tied; the rest of the polls have Clinton ahead from just outside the margin of error to double digit leads) is because he has been successfully tarred as an irresponsible, hot head, who is a racist and woman groper to boot and the Clinton campaign has successfully diverted attention away from the revelations of James O’Keefe and Wikileaks and others about her and about her positions, where the respective policy positions remain in the background (although last night’s debate did point out some of the differences.)

But there is no other Republican who would have been more popular than Trump. The only question is whether that Republican would have made it as easy to demonize him as Trump did and whether if the candidate were anyone other than Trump, the media would have spent more time critiquing Clinton. I don’t think it would have mattered and in the case of some of the Republicans, such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, would they have governed substantially different than from how Clinton might govern? I don’t think it would have made much difference on foreign or domestic policy. I think each would have weakened immigration laws more than Clinton will be able to because there will be resistance to her. There might be some marginal differences in Supreme Court appointees and in staffing of cabinet positions, but certainly no significant changes in direction.

Posted in America, Donald Trump, Republicans | Comments Off on Common Republican Misconceptions About Donald Trump