155 search results for “Unlock Your Potential With Real Tableau TCA-C01 Exam Dumps đ Open website â www.pdfvce.com đ ° and search for ⶠTCA-C01 â for free download đTCA-C01 Test Duration”
Americansâ historical ignorance and defensiveness about race have given the mob the upper hand. This must change or America will cease to exist.
Hardly a day goes by when we donât hear about another historical monument or statue being vandalized, defaced, toppled, or destroyed by angry mobs of left-wing âwokeâ activists determined to exorcise from the public sphere alleged âracists,â âimperialists,â âbigots,â âmisogynists,â and âtraitors.â
This is grievously wrong. No matter how you feel about the relative merits of a particular statue or monument, no one has a right to destroy these artifacts of history.
If they are to be taken down, that should happen only after much deliberation and through the lawful and legitimate political process, not through violent, lawless, and destructive mobs.
Federal, state and local officials deserve our contempt for their knowing refusal to protect our nationâs historical monuments and statues from vandalism and destruction. This is nothing less than a rank dereliction of duty.
Wanton Destruction. Friday night, for instance, police officers from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. watched and did nothing as a progressive mob used rope and chains to topple a statue of Confederate General Albert Pike before setting the statue on fire.
It is fairly obvious that this entire Jacobin effort is aimed at deconstructing and delegitimizing the American Founding and Western Civilization.
The mobs, after all, make few if any distinctions. Thus they have targeted any and all historical figures found guilty, it seems, of sinning against 21st Century progressive orthodoxy.
Consequently, most Americans are defensive at best and all-too credulous at worst when the progressive mob accuses iconic American and Western historical figures of being the moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler.
And of course, the worst thing that you can be called in 21st Century America is a âracist.â That is the ultimate scarlet letter in our politics today. For these reasons, the progressive mob is having its way and running amuck and unopposed.
Distinctions. Meanwhile, some public figures of goodfaith are trying to draw distinctions that they believe are legitimate, and which will protect, say, George Washington and Winston Churchill, while sacrificing more debatable figures such as Confederate War General Nathan Bedford Forrest.
I understand and respect this sentiment, but appeasing the mob is a mistake. This will only strengthen and embolden the mob.
Indeed, now is not the time to try and draw distinctions between allegedly legitimate and illegitimate statues and monuments. Now is the time to circle the wagons and to unalterably oppose the mob and its wanton acts of destruction.
Now is the time to try and understand our history and why these statues and monuments were created and erected in the first place. Then and only then should we consider taking down (not destroying) any of our historical statues and monuments.
The Confederacy. The most vulnerable pieces of art and remembrance are those that pay tribute to Confederate soldiers and generals. I will address these in a separate piece.
Why, then, did they fight; and why do we have statues and monuments that honor them?
Isnât that something we should understand, discuss and debate before removing these artifacts of history? And in any case, can we not all agree that mob vandalism and destruction of our nationâs history is unacceptable and will not be tolerated?
The End. If what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called The Vital Center doesnât speak up soon in defense of the American experiment, then the America we have known and loved for more than two centuries will cease to exist.
Of course, that’s exactly what the progressive mob wants.
The United States and NATO have the moral and military means to force Russia to stand down in the Black Sea. What they seem to lack is the will.
Russia’s threat to withdraw from its grain deal with Ukraine underscores Russian criminality and Western weakness. But the West is weak-willed; it is not militarily weak.
In fact, quite the opposite: the United States and NATO possess overwhelming military superiority and could quickly destroy the Russian military in Ukraine if they chose to do so.
Western Inaction. This is not to argue for a preemptive Western military strike on, say, Russia’s Black Sea naval fleet. Instead, it is to argue for a more forceful and assertive Western posture vis-Ă -vis Russia and the flow of Ukrainian grain to the rest of the world.
The fact is: the West occupies the moral high ground. Russia’s threat to block Ukrainian grain exports serves no military purpose.
However, it does serve to jeopardize the survival and well-being of millions of people worldwideâespecially the poor and impoverished in less developed nations that struggle to overcome poverty and malnutrition.
Russian War Crimes. This latest Russian threat, moreover, cannot be divorced from ongoing Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure and residentialneighborhoods in Ukraine. These attacks are quite literally criminal. They, too, serve no military purpose. They are war crimes and crimes against humanity.
For this reason, the West ought to be far more insistent than it has been about safeguarding the right of Ukraine to export grain through the Black Sea ports of Chornomorsk, Odesa, and Yuzhny/Pivdennyi to the rest of the world.
This means not simply protesting against Russian threats, but declaring, unequivocally, that the United States and NATO will ensure that Ukrainian grain exports continue unmolested;Â and that any Russian ship that tries to stop or interfere with this crucial humanitarian mission will be destroyed.
Denouncing Mr. Putin isnât likely to change his mind about the grain initiative.
If he insists on a food blockade, the best response is for the U.S. to organize a coalition of the willing to escort grain shipments from Odessa and through the Black Sea.
It neednât be a NATO operation, though the U.S. would have to lead it.
Wartime Ironies. One of the ironies of this war has been that Russia is economically and militarily weak, but brazen and aggressive. The West, by contrast, is economically and militarily strong, but timid and tentative. Consequently, the West too often has yielded the initiative to Russia.
This has been a big mistake. It is long past time for the United States and NATO to recognize that they have the whip hand, both morally and militarily, vis-à -vis Russia and to act accordingly.
A good place to start would be in the Black Sea: by ensuring that Ukrainian grain shipments to the rest of the world continue unabated without Russian interference.
What makes Cauvin’s impersonation of Trump so compelling, I think, are three things, three rare gifts that he has:
First, like all great impressionists, Cauvin captures his subject’s voice and inflections to a tee. Indeed, the timbre and intonation of his voice all truly sound like Trump’s. It is remarkable. Cauvin obviously has a great ear.
Second, Cauvin perfectly captures Trump’s facial expressions, contortions, and mannerisms. It is, amazingly, like watching The Donald.
Third, Cauvin is a great writer. He not only looks and sounds like Trump; he speaks like Trump! Thus he perfectly captures Trump’s rhetorical tics and unique style of speaking.
Cauvin’s satirical spoof on Trump’s Easter message (above) is pure brilliance and a joy to behold. In fact, Cauvin is so good that I cannot help but wonder: why has he not received greater national attention?
For example, why has he not been on Saturday Night Live? Cauvin is much more entertaining than Alec Baldwin, who does a very weak and decidedly unentertaining Donald Trump.
The reason may be that Cauvin is too good. He is laugh-aloud entertaining, and his impersonation has the effect of humanizing Trump. And humanizing Trump is the very last thing our progressive denizens of pop culture want to do.
Trump, to them, is a monster, and he must be depicted as such.
It’s too bad because wit and humor can help soften and leaven the political polarization that plagues our country.
But even were that not the case, there is intrinsic wisdom and beauty in great art that is worth contemplating for its own sake. And great art should be considered as such irrespective of the subject whom it depicts.
All of which is to say: Donald Trump may a less-than-admirable human being; but J-L Cauvin’s depiction of Trump is, nonetheless, admirable and impressiveâand well worth the moments of levity that it engenders.
Yes, and it looks like it will come down to Haley and DeSantis vying for the right to take on the former president. Let’s hope Haley prevails.
With Donald Trump in a commanding lead for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, the big question coming out of the first GOP presidential debate is: what does it portend for the winnowing of the field?
That question is important because the assumption by political analysts all along has been that to defeat Trump, you need to winnow down the anti-Trump field to one primary challenger. Otherwise, the anti-Trump vote will splinter, thus allowing the former president to prevail with only a plurality, and not a majority, of the vote.
2016. That’s what happened in 2016, and Republicans eager to move beyond Trump are deathly worried that it might happen again this year. As New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu explains:
While itâs true that Mr. Trump has an iron grip on more than 30 percent of the electorate, the other 60 percent or so is open to moving forward with a new nominee…
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is consistently polling in the low 40 percent range. The floor of his support may be high, but his ceiling is low…
Mr. Trump must face a smaller field. It is only then that his path to victory shrinks…
After the results from Iowa come in, it is paramount that the field must shrink, before the New Hampshire primary, to the top three or four…
Provided the field shrinks by Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Trump loses. He will always have his die-hard base, but the majority is up for grabs
So, with that in mind, did the first 2024 GOP presidential debate winnow the field, or is it more splintered than ever?
Byron York argues persuasively that field has been winnowed from 13 candidates to at least seven candidates and, more likely, five candidates.
Winnowing the Field. For starters, he notes, four candidatesâLarry Elder, Perry Johnson, Francis Suarez, and Will Hurdâdid not meet the debate’s minimal qualification standards and thus were no-shows. That leaves nine candidates.
Two candidates, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-North Dakota) and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, “used funding gimmics to meet the RNC’s donor requirements, and both made little impact on the debate.
“There’s really no reason for them to continue participating in the debates,” York notes. “So that is a nine-candidate field going down to a seven-candidate field.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) may stay in the race for a while; however, it is clear that neither man can be nominated. Scott had a very weak debate performance and is not a compelling presidential candidate.
Pence had a strong debate performance, but “given Pence’s history as Trump’s vice president,” York writes, “he has no comfortable place in a race against the president he served.”
Final Five. That leaves five GOP presidential candidates: Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Florida), former Gov. Nikki Haley (R-South Carolina), former Gov. Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Vivek Ramaswamy, and Trump.
Christie no doubt will leave the race in time for the anti-Trump vote to consolidate around a candidate who can deny Trump the nomination. Christie knows he is not that candidate and is committed to doing whatever it takes to defeat Trump, even if it means falling on his sword.
Vivek will not leave the race because is not running against Trump; he is running interference for Trump as the former president’s defender and blocking back.
That leaves DeSantis and Haley as the only viable candidates who can prevail against Trump. The danger is that neither of them will withdraw from the race; they will split the anti-Trump vote; and the former president will again win out with a plurality of the vote.
DeSantis won’t want to withdraw from the race because he has been the anti-Trump favorite all along, polling consistently a distant second to the former president.
DeSantis was underwhelming in the debate. His stellar record as governor, his superb management of the COVID crisis, and his fight against woke indoctrination in the schools have earned him GOP support; but he has been a weak, wooden, and uninspiring presidential candidate.
Haley, meanwhile, started out the race respectably, but did nothing to distinguish herself âuntil that is she literally lit it up in the debate.
“Voter interest in Nikki Haley is surging after the underdog presidential contender delivered a breakthrough performance during a combative Republican debate in Milwaukee,” write David Drucker, Audrey Fahlberg, and Steve Hayes in The Dispatch.
“Weâve raised more online in the last 24 hours than on any day since the campaign started,â says Haleyâs campaign spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas.
Haley’s surge in the race is, indeed, well deserved. She would be the Republican Party’s most formidable presidential candidate against Joe Biden or Kamala Harris and is far better positioned than DeSantis to take down Trump.
She is simply a better and more compelling candidate. And the fact that she is a woman is a decided political advantage, given the GOP’s gender gap and loss of suburban women if Trump is the nominee.
But will DeSantis recognize this and bow out gracefully, thus giving Haley a one-on-one matchup against Trump?
Probably notâunless and until Haley can best him in one or more primary contests.
Conclusion. As I say, DeSantis probably has too much invested in this race to cede the nomination to Haley. As the number two candidate in the polls for many months, he no doubt feels entitled to be the party’s anti-Trump candidate.
But if GOP voters reject him and embrace Haley instead, DeSantis may have no choice but to face the music and accept defeat. We’ll know soon enough.
The Iowa Caucuses are Jan. 15; New Hampshire voters go to the polls a couple of weeks later; the Nevada Caucuses are Feb. 8; and South Carolina renders its verdict Feb. 24. Stay tuned.
Shapiro’s Jewish and pro-Israel, and for a critical mass of Democrats today, that’s disqualifying.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is one of the greatest political talents in America today, and he would be the strongest vice presidential nominee for Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party.
Shapiro is a popular and successful governor 18 months into his first term from a critical battleground state, Pennsylvania, that Harris almost certainly must win if she is to win the White House.
Yet, it is beyond certain that Harris will not select Shapiro. Why? Because he’s Jewish, pro-Israel, and has been critical of the pro-Hamas, Jew-hating protests that have rocked some American universities and municipalities ever since the October 7, 2023, massacre of Jews in Israel by invading Palestinian terrorists.
The Democrats’ Divide. As New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg points out, the Democratic Party today is divided between more traditional Democrats who support Israel and more radical, “progressive” Democrats who do not.
“Choosing Shapiro,” she warns, “who is ardently pro-Israel and outspoken in his condemnation of the recent campus protests, would rip those wounds open again.”
CNN’s John King made a similar point when he noted that choosing Shapiro would pose “some risk” to Harris and the Democrats. King did not elaborate or explain what the risk would be, but it is not hard to figure out.
As a pro-Israeli Jew, Shapiro could cost Harris votes in Michigan, another critical battleground state that she needs to win. Michigan is home to a large Muslim immigrant population; and, in these communities, there is, sadly, Â a lot of Jew hatred.
Their Political Calculation. So, the obvious question is: would Shapiro cost Harris more votes in Michigan than he might gain her there and in other swing states? And is the electoral vote balance more likely than not to be favorable to the Harris if he is the VP nominee?
Moreover, the energy and passion in the Democratic Party, certainly since October 7, is on the pro-Hamas, Jew-hating left. Does nominating Shapiro as VP dampen or extinguish this passion and energy, which Kamala needs for a close, hard-fought campaign?
The hard and difficult truth is that Jew-hating anti-Semites are now an important constituency and activist base within the Democratic Party. Democrats are wary of alienating this constituency because they need its votes and its political activism during the election season.
Congressional Appeasement. Domestic political concerns certainly explain why more than 50 House and Senate Democratsâincluding Vice President Harris in her Constitutional role as president of the Senateâplan to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress tomorrow.
Elected Democrats are eager to signal to their anti-Israel, Jew-hating base that they, too, are frustrated and angry with Israel because of its war in Gaza.
Appeasing bigots, of course, is nothing new for the Democratic Party. Democrats did the same thing in the middle of the 20th Century, when the accommodated racists and segregationists as an integral part of their New Deal and Great Society political coalition.
No to Shapiro. So although Shapiro no doubt would appeal to swing voters, independents, and even some Republicans in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he is too politically toxic for core Democratic constituencies and voting groupsânamely, the hard, “progressive” left, which despises Israel, and the Jew-hating anti-Semitic left, which despises Jews.
Will this change over time? Maybe, but maybe not.
What is certain is that, in 2024, Shapiro has no future in the Democratic Party. He will have to wait at least four years (and probably longer) before Democrats will ever consider him for national political office. His selection as VP ain’t happening this time around, in 2024.
Feature photo credit: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, courtesy of the Palm Beach Post (Kathryne Rubright).
Presidents Kennedy, Carter, and Reagan were each responsible for monumental policy failures. Yet, they emerged from these crises with their honor and integrity intact.
We cannot, sadly, say the same of President Trump.
To appreciate how wrong and contemptible President Trumpâs lies and evasion of responsibility are re: his administrationâs weak and tardy response to the coronavirus, it is helpful to review how other America presidents have responded when they erred and failed at times of national crisis.
There’s an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan.
I’ve said as much as I feel can be usefully said by me in regard to the events of the past few days. Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility, because I’m the responsible officer of the government… and that is quite obviousâ
But merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation.
Kennedy was not excessively self-critical, and he did not wallow in self-abasement. However, he did man up and forthrightly accept responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle.
The American people respected Kennedy for owning up to his failure, forgave him, and rallied to his side with a spectacular 70-percent-plus approval rating. The country moved on.
Late yesterday, I cancelled a carefully planned operation which was underway in Iran to position our rescue team for later withdrawal of American hostages, who have been held captive there since November 4. Equipment failure in the rescue helicopters made it necessary to end the missionâŠ
I made a decision to commence the rescue operations plans. This attempt became a necessity and a duty. The readiness of our team to undertake the rescue made it completely practicable.
Accordingly, I made the decision to set our long-developed plans into operation.
I ordered this rescue mission prepared in order to safeguard American lives, to protect America’s national interests, and to reduce the tensions in the world that have been caused among many nations as this crisis has continued.
It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it when problems developed in the placement of our rescue team for a future rescue operation. The responsibility is fully my own.
Carter ended up losing the 1980 presidential election in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, in no small part because of the Iranian hostage debacle. However, in the aftermath of the failed hostage rescue attempt, Carterâs support did not collapse.
Again, the American people were quite forgiving of presidential failure. They understood that, despite whatever disagreements and doubts they had about Carter, he was nonetheless a good and decent man trying his level best to do right by them and the country.
My fellow Americans, I’ve spoken to you from this historic office on many occasions and about many things. The power of the Presidency is often thought to reside within this Oval Office. Yet it doesn’t rest here; it rests in you, the American people, and in your trust.
Your trust is what gives a President his powers of leadership and his personal strength, and it’s what I want to talk to you about this evening.
For the past three months, I’ve been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking, âWell, why doesn’t he tell us what’s happening? Why doesn’t he just speak to us as he has in the past when we’ve faced troubles or tragedies?â
Others of you, I guess, were thinking, ”What’s he doing hiding out in the White House?”
Well, the reason I haven’t spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And, as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion.
There’s been enough of that.
I’ve paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and confidence. But I have had to wait, as you have, for the complete story.
Notice how Reagan emphasized presidential trust and candor, and the importance of speaking truthfully to the American people. Notice, too, that he felt the need to apologize for not being communicative enough! (Of course, they didnât have Twitter back then.)
Reagan explained that he had appointed a special review board to investigate what had happened, and that the board had just issued its findings.Â
Let’s start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.
As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to Administration policy and to the original strategy we had in mind.
There are reasons why it happened but no excuses. It was a mistake.
I undertook the original Iran initiative in order to develop relations with those who might assume leadership in a post-Khomeini Government. It’s clear from the board’s report, however, that I let my personal concern for the hostages spill over into the geopolitical strategy of reaching out to Iran.
I asked so many questions about the hostages’ welfare that I didn’t ask enough about the specifics of the total Iran planâŠ
As I told the Tower board, I didn’t know about any diversion of funds to the contras. But as President, I cannot escape responsibilityâŠ
Now what should happen when you make a mistake is this: You take your knocks, you learn your lessons and then you move on. That’s the healthiest way to deal with a problem.
This in no way diminishes the importance of the other continuing investigations, but the business of our country and our people must proceedâŠ
You know, by the time you reach my age, you’ve made plenty of mistakes, and if you’ve lived your life properly, so you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward.
My fellow Americans, I have a great deal that I want to accomplish with you and for you over the next two years, and, the Lord willing, that’s exactly what I intend to do. Goodnight and God bless you.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
The walls were torn down; Eastern Europe was liberated; the Soviet Union was defeated; and the Cold War was won. America, meanwhile, enjoyed continued peace and prosperity; and Reagan finished up his second term a highly popular, successful, and respected two-term president.
To this disgraceful list we should add other damning Trump statements or admissions. NBC News reports:
Asked Friday at his press conference by NBC Newsâ Kristen Welker whether he should take responsibility for the failure to disseminate larger quantities of tests earlier, Trump declined.
This tweet would be laughable were the matter not so serious, with tens of thousands of American lives hanging in the balance.
Again, as we have reported here at ResCon1, Trump’s China ban was the one praiseworthy decision that he made early on in this crisis. However, it was hardly a game changer, because it never was combined with rapid and comprehensive testing to prevent community spread of the virus.
Forgiveness. In any case, mistakes and errors are forgivable and can be excused. In fact, as our history shows, the American people are quite forgiving of presidents who make mistakes, acknowledge their error, and seek forgiveness.
What is unforgivable, though, is refusing to acknowledge error and then compounding the error by lying repeatedly about it. And that, unfortunately, describes the all-too-characteristic behavior of Trump. George Conway captures this character flaw well:
But responsibility? Never. Ever the blameless narcissist, Trump always insists that the buck stops wherever convenientâfor him, personally.
For Trump, success always has a single fatherâhimself. Failure has a hundredâeveryone and anyone else: The media. The Democrats. The âdeep state.â Disloyal staffers. Prosecutors. Judges.
Anyone who doesnât do his bidding or sufficiently sing his praises.
And the common thread between his taking credit and shifting blame? Trumpâs standbys: Lying, deceit and exaggeration. All have come into play throughout his presidency, and all now have come home to roost.
America made a big mistake when it failed to elect Mitt Romney President in 2012.
That thought occurred to me in light of the Senatorâs courageous vote to convict President Trump on one count of impeachment (abuse of power), and in light of Russianâs ongoing and successful efforts to undermine U.S. national security interests worldwide, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.
“Who is it that always stands up for the world’s worst actors?â he explained. âIt is always Russia, typically with China alongside.â
Of course, during their debate, Obama ridiculed Romney to great political effect:
When you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said “Russia.” Not Al-Qaeda; you said Russia. And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
âEvery debate,â writes David Drucker, âhas a defining momentâfor instance, Ronald Reagan’s âthere you go againâ in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter. In 2012’s debate on foreign policy, Obama’s barb, and Romney’s failure to recover, was it. Romney’s momentum evaporated in an instant.â
Many prominent Democrats, Drucker notes, have since acknowledged that Romney was right. Most notable among them: Madeleine Albrightâa top Democrat on foreign policy, Bill Clintonâs Secretary of State, and an Obama supporter.
âI personally owe an apology to now-Senator Romney, because I think that we underestimated what was going on in Russia,â Albright said during a [Feb. 26, 2019], House Intelligence Committee hearingâ as reported by ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett.
Russian Aggression. Of course, ever since Trump was elected, Democrats have talked incessantly about Russiaâs attempt to interfere in our presidential election by sowing disinformation, animosity and confusion.
This, obviously, is a legitimate concern; but much more significant, I think, is Russiaâs increasingly bold and brazen attempts to displace the United States as an arbiter of international affairs, while expanding its influence at our expense and the expense of our friends and allies.
Russia is intensifying a pressure campaign on U.S. military forces in northeastern Syria following the American withdrawal from much of that area ahead of a Turkish cross-border offensive last fall, American military and diplomatic officials say.
Russian military personnel have increasingly had run-ins with U.S. troops on highways in the region, breaking agreements between the two countries to steer clear of each other. Russian helicopters are flying closer to American troops.
And on Wednesday, a U.S.-led convoy returned fire after it came under attack near a checkpoint manned by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who are backed by Russia.
American officials say these actions by Russian personnel and their Syrian allies are devised to present a constant set of challenges, probes and encroachments to slowly create new facts on the ground and make the U.S. military presence there more tenuous.
About 500 American troops remain deployed in Syria with a mission to protect oil fields and help fight remnants of the Islamic State.
To be sure, Russia is a second-rate power with a weakeconomy and a weak military. However, it does have nuclear weapons and sophisticated niche capabilities in select areas such as electronic warfare and air defense.
Russia does not want a direct military confrontation with the United States, since that would be suicidal for them.
Instead, Russia aims to conduct an ongoing but low-level campaign of harassment of U.S. military forces: to make our presence in Syria untenable and force our withdrawal.
Unfortunately, the Russians are pushing on an open door. Trump, after all, has made clear many times throughout his presidency that he wants out of Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East more generally.
Obama-Trump Weakness. In fairness, Russiaâs reemergence as a military and diplomatic power in the Middle East began under Obama, when he failed to uphold his red line on the use of chemical weapons by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and then welcomed the Russians into the country to help settle the Syrian civil war.
But Trump has continued Obamaâs policy of appeasement by abandoning U.S.-controlled-territory there, thus giving the Russians greater leverage and control over Syria.
And itâs not just Syria, but Libya as well, where American weakness and indecision have emboldened the Russians, enhanced their influence, and undermined U.S. national security interests.Â
after it deployed mercenaries to the front lines of Tripoli to back [Libyan warlord Khalifa] Haftar, sparking concern in the United States and Europe that the Kremlin had finally thrown its hat into Libyaâs civil war.
Its presence in Libya was strikingly reminiscent of the decisive role it played in Syria, where it backed the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to brutal effect and essentially saved the regime from collapse.
âPutin is clearly angling for access to oil and military bases on the Mediterranean in a resource-rich country at the gateway to Africa and on NATOâs southern flank,â wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as reported by Guy Taylor in the Washington Times.
This is something that a President Romney, with far greater strategic vision and public rectitude than either Trump or Obama, never would have allowed.
Indeed, Romney in 2019 would have realized, just as he did in 2012, that Russiaâs gain can only come at our expense; and that abandoning key allies in the Middle East and North Africa is both morally wrong and a recipe for strategic disaster.
He also would have realized, as he does now, that the public trust is sacred and must never be shredded for personal political gain. That, after all, is not putting America First; it is putting America to shame.
This is the fourth is a series of posts that examines how the Democratic presidential contenders are faring with black voters. Thus far weâve considered Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg. Here we consider Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed democratic socialist who wants to outlaw private-sector health insurance, ban hydraulic fracking, eliminate nuclear power, abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agencies, impose national rent control, nationalize electrical power production, and make corporations quasi-public entities that are increasingly accountable not to shareholders and the market, but to politicians and the state.
In short, if Bernie were to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, he would be, without question, the most radical and left-wing major party presidential nominee in all of American history.
Most black Democrats, by contrast, reject his ideasâor at least there is no great groundswell of support among African Americans for such a radical restructuring of American society and the U.S. market economy.
To the contrary, most black Democrats are moderates or center-left liberals who seek greater government support and protection within a broader market economy.
And yet: Bernie is doing very well with African American voters. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows him just three points behind Biden (31-28) in black support.Â
Since January, reports the Post, Sanders âhas more than doubled his support among black voters and has gained among whites without college degrees.â
State Polls. In South Carolina, Sanders is losing the black vote to Biden 43-20 according to a new UMass Lowell poll. But South Carolina is just one state, and it is the one state where Biden has cashed in all of his chips, so to speak, because it is truly a do-or-die state for him, politically.Â
Still, for Sanders, 20 percent of the black vote in a state where he hasnât been especially active and where the electorate is fractured among several competing candidates ainât bad. In North Carolina, Virginia, and other southern states with large black populations, Sanders is holding his own, with roughly 17-20 percent of the black vote.
That may be more than enough black support for Sanders to win his share of states with large African American populations.
At the very least, it will be more than enough black support for Sanders to amass a large share of the delegates, since the Democrats award their delegates proportionately in accordance with a candidateâs share of the overall vote tally vice a winner-take-all approach.
Moreover, as the primary race moves further north and west, into New York, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and California, Sanders is poised to do even better with black voters.
Thatâs because he polls better nationally among black voters than he does statewide in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and other southern states. This suggests that Sanders has greater black support outside of the south in the cities and in other urban and industrial areas.
Sanders Connects. In any case, what accounts for Sanders success with black voters, given the ideological divide between him, a self-avowed socialist, and them, more moderate, center-left types?
Two things: First, as David Frum has observed, although he is a socialist, Bernie is not especially âwokeâ or politically correct. In fact, he tends to eschew or avoid identity politics, focusing instead on bread-and-butter economic issuesâjobs, healthcare, education, student debt relief, the social-safety net, et al.
These are the types of everyday, “meat-and-potato” concerns that resonate with ordinary voters, black and white.
Democratic primary voters thus tend not to see Sanders as the radical or socialist that he genuinely is. Instead, they see him as a pragmatic liberal politician eager to use the power of the state to extend economic opportunity to people whoâve been left behind, while interjecting greater fairness back into a system that, in their view, has been skewed and corrupted to favor the wealthy.
Second, Sanders support is heavily tilted toward younger voters, and his African American supporters are no different: They are conspicuously younger than, say, Joe Bidenâs African American supporters.
Indeed, today’s Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Sanders with a commanding 50-12 lead over Biden among Democratic-leaning votes who are less than 50 years old. Among Democratic-leaning voters older than 50, by contrast, Biden bests Sanders 20-14.
The bottom line: Bernie may be a self-avowed socialist; but he is also a smart politician who has been able to connect with an increasingly large swath of the Democratic Party primary electorate, black and white.
This puts him in a unique and enviable political position. Sanders is not desperately scrambling for black votes like, say, Pete Buttigieg; but neither is he utterly and completely dependent on black votes like, say, Joe Biden.
Instead, Sandersâ winning coalition occupies a middle ground between these two extremes of political need and political dependency. And that is why he is the undisputedâand perhaps unbeatableâfrontrunner in this Democratic presidential primary race.
“It was about 5:50 in the morning [Christmas day]. We heard loud banging at the door, over and over and over again. So we went, sleepy in our pajamas to the door, and there was a policeman and a police woman telling us to evacuate immediately…
“We were confused, and we had a lot of presents set out for our kids to go see. And we were like, asking if there was any way we could stay, and they said, no, that there was a public threat…
“So we woke up our kids and put on shoes and jackets and left, and got in our car and drove away… And as we were driving away, I kept turning around to look…
“And I was looking at our stretch of buildings downtown and I saw it explode. I saw a huge explosion, a big orange fireball up in the air about twice as tall as our building. And I just said to my husband, ‘Oh my gosh! I think our building just exploded…’
“I was so grateful we left… I’m so glad we have our kids.
“And, above anything else, I am so glad for those officers who walked into a building that they knew was a dangerous spot to be and woke us up and got us out. I am so grateful…”
Why You Should Have Bought Stocks When the Market Tanked in Marchâand Why You Should Do So When It Tanks Again
The SPY (along with the overall stock market) has bounced back in dramatic and unstoppable fashion since its March 2020 bottom (source: CNBC).
CNBC: “The S&P 500 heads into the final week of the year with about a 15% gain for 2020, but from the March low the index is up about 65%. The bull market turned nine months old this past week.
“According to CFRAâs Stovall, that nine-month gain is more than twice the average nine-month gain of 32.2% for all bull markets since World War II. In the remaining course of the bull markets, their average compounded growth was just 20.3%, showing a slowdown in the rate of gains…”
Lockdowns Don’t Stop COVID, But They Do Screw the Poor and Disadvantaged
Stephen Moore, Fox News: “Liberals love to talk about following the science, but all evidence of the last nine months points to the scientific conclusion that lockdowns do not work to reduce deaths.
“Contact-tracing studies show that about half of those infected with the coronavirus got it despite staying at home. Only 2% of the transmission comes from restaurants, and almost none come from outdoor dining, which is now idiotically prohibited in California.
“The states that have not locked down their economy have lower death rates than New York and New Jersey.
“The unemployment rate for service workers in these states has skyrocketed to as high as 10%. In contrast, the red states, such as Utah and Florida, that are still open for business have unemployment rates for service workers as low as 4%…”
Low-Tax States Are Booming and Taking People and Businesses from High-Tax States
Scott Sumner, EconLib.Org: “In recent months, a number of important firms have announced they are relocating from California to Texas…
“The movement of these industries is toward three statesâ[Texas, Tennessee, and Florida]âthat have one thing in commonâno state income tax. And these are the only three states with no income tax in the southeastern quadrant of the USâsay Texas to Florida and south of the Ohio River…
“A person would have to be pretty blind to ignore the migration of firms from places like New York, New Jersey, and California, to lower tax places…
“Interestingly, Washington State has no income tax, which is unique for a northern state with a big city…
“For the first time ever (AFAIK), California saw its population fall last year, and yet it has a delightful climate (even with the recent forest fires.)Â High tax Hawaii also lost population.
“So while people are gradually moving to warmer locations, state tax policies explain why certain states attract a disproportionate share of the migrants.
“Indeed, last year more that half of the U.S. population growth occurred in just two statesâTexas and Florida. I believe thatâs the first time that has ever happened. Add in Tennessee and Washington and you are at nearly two-thirds of the nationâs population growth…”
Courts Universally Reject Trump’s Allegations that the Election Was ‘Rigged’ and ‘Stolen’
Business Insider: “The Trump campaign, Republican allies, and Trump himself have mounted at least 40 legal challenges since Election Day.
“They’ve won zero.
“The lawsuits argue that states and counties have violated election laws, playing into Trump’s political strategy to discredit the results of the 2020 election that President-elect Joe Biden won.
“Republicans have filed the lawsuits in local, state, and federal courts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvaniaâall states that Biden won. They have also filed direct appeals to the Supreme Court, all of which have also failed…”
Tom Brady: 43 Years Old and Still the Greatest
ESPN: “Brady put together the best first half of his career, completing 22 of 27 passes for 348 yards. He is the only player over the past 40 seasons with at least 240 passing yards and four TDs before halftime, according to Elias Sports Bureau. (Brady also threw for 345 yards and five TDs in the first half against the Titans in 2009)…”
Feature photo credit: The six police officers who ran to danger to save lives Christmas Day. Source the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, courtesy of the New York Post.
The American people have a right to know what policies a President Biden would pursue to combat COVID. A politically self-serving declaration that he will “follow the science” is pure obfuscation.
âLetâs end the politics and follow the science,â declares Joe Biden.
Biden’s declaration is politically self-serving because it suggests that, as president, his policies to address COVID will be apolitical and simply science-based. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Joe Bidenâs promise to âfollow the scienceâ does not amount to a strategy. Itâs just a slogan.
A strategy to deal with the pandemic needs to set priorities and incorporate values that science isnât equipped to provide. If Biden and his fans think following the science is the plan, they misunderstand the nature of science and its limitations.
Science can give insights into the nature of the pandemic, but there is no scientific formula pointing to a solution
“This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as ‘the science,'” writes Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal. “There are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus.”
Sweden. As we’ve previously noted, for instance, Swedish scientists and public health authorities have taken a strikingly different approach to combating COVID than their counterparts in the United States.
The Swedes have eschewed lockdowns and mandatory mask orders and instead, have focused their efforts on protecting the most vulnerable members of the population. Thus schools, restaurants, and fitness centers have remained open.
Early on in the pandemic, as Ridley notes, the Swedish approach looked foolish and shortsighted. “Now, with cases low and the Swedish economy in much better health than other countries,” he observes, Swedish public health authorities look prescient and wise.
“Different countries,” explains Flam, “can ‘follow the science’ to different strategies.”
Science. Yet, “follow the science” resonates with us because it appeals to our belief that politics involves opinions and value judgments about which people can and do vigorously disagree. Science, by contrast, deals with facts and empirical reality which we all must acknowledge and recognize.
If only it were that simple! In truth, our scientific understanding of the coronavirus is not fixed and settled dogma; it is developing and evolving based on new discoveries and new empirical realities.
science has gone from a gradual accumulation of knowledge to a train at full steam.
Itâs worth remembering that what is true today will almost certainly be proven false next week, and that when people appear to change their minds it is an inherently good thingâadapting to new evidence is the cornerstone of science.
Just last week, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged for the first time that the coronavirus sometimes can spread through airborne particles “that can linger in the air for minutes to hours,” thereby infecting people “who are further than six feet apart.”
The implications of this finding, though, are a legitimate source of political debate. Is the risk of airborne infection serious enough to warrant a different public health strategy? Or is the risk sufficiently low that no change in strategy is warranted?
“The science” ought to inform how we answer these and other public health questions; but ultimately, policymakers must make value judgments that balance competing interests, assess what is most important, and determine how much risk the public should assume.
Politics. In short, the science of COVID cannot be divorced from the politics of COVID. It is, therefore, too glib and self-serving for Biden to declare that his strategy for combating the coronavirus will be simply to “follow the science.”
As Bruce Trogdon observes, this is a great political “sound-byte. But the scientists donât even agree and the consensus is constantly shifting. Which scientist? Which study? Which day?”
We don’t know because Biden won’t say.
Bide says he’ll “follow the science,” because he wants us to ignore his politics, which mirror those of blue state governors like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who embrace lockdowns.
“Joe Biden is the shutdown candidate,” explains the Wall Street Journal’sDaniel Hennninger. “At last weekâs presidential non-debate,” he writes,
perhaps the most consequential remark by Mr. Biden was about living with the virus. âYou canât fix the economy,â Mr. Biden said, âuntil you fix the Covid crisis.â Virus first, economy later.
I take that to mean Mr. Bidenâs coronavirus policy would be to support reviving shutdowns if the virus-case metric goes up, and support governors who push back against openings.
As such, his policy would reflect minimal adjustment of the Democratic partyâs lockdown bias, no matter the countryâs experience with the virus since March.
That’s a legitimate position to take, even if it is, as I think, seriously mistaken and misguided. What is utterly illegitimate and wrong is for Biden to continue to dodge the question in an effort to deceive the American people.
Voters have a right to know precisely what the former Vice President means when he says he’ll “follow the science”: because, as he surely knows, the meaning of that phrase is anything but self-evident and self-explanatory. It is, though, politically self-serving.
Feature photo credit: The six police officers who 