Het valt te hopen dat politici-van-goede-wil tijdens het kerstreces – pardon: eindejaarsreces – tijd vinden om boeken te lezen. Tot hun verbijstering zullen ze dan ontdekken dat de huidige confrontatie tussen islam en christendom, tussen ‘noord’ en ‘zuid’ (ook binnen Europa), tussen ‘oost’ en ‘west’ (ook binnen Europa), tussen achterlijkheid en beschaving, tussen terroristen en veiligheidsdiensten, tussen gelukszoekers en rechters, tussen elites en de samenleving, tussen wegkijkers en bezorgde burgers, tussen overheid en maffia, tussen milieufanaten en voorstanders van geboortebeperking, tussen zakkenvullers en belastingbetalers, en tussen koningshuizen die zich ruim € 200.000 budget voor kleding kunnen permitteren, en republikeinen reeds lang voorzien werden. Mogen ze daar in 2017 niet alleen lering uit trekken, maar vooral met echte oplossingen komen.
Crowd funding
Bedelacties via internet of tv worden tegenwoordig vaak crowd funding genoemd, oorspronkelijk bedoeld om veel kleine investeerders te trekken voor een (mogelijk) winstgevend project. Doch naar de Noord- of Zuidpool trekken om de aandacht op het milieu te vestigen, is een vorm van zelfverheerlijking. Voor een dure medische behandeling in de VS – hoe twijfelachtig het kostenplaatje ook – valt nog begrip op te brengen. De mogelijke winst is immers gezondheid of zelfs behoud van leven. Ook ervaring opdoen met die behandeling kan als maatschappelijke of medische winst worden aangemerkt. Maar een oceaan over roeien is gewoon dwaasheid of een vorm van zelfvernietiging, zelfs als daarmee het Guinness Book of Records wordt gehaald. De kosten van reddingsoperaties, psychische/medische gevolgen en van reclamesponsoring leveren alleen ‘verlies’ op.
Nuance
De bevolkingsgroei in 4 grote steden komt vooral door immigratie, ook vanuit Europa, schrijft De Telegraaf. Het AD meent dat dit komt door een groter geboortenoverschot.
Doch waarom in de grote steden: is daar zoveel werk of woonruimte beschikbaar voor immigranten? Of worden daar meer vrouwen vaker zwanger? Of is er toch vrije vestiging voor asielzoekers met verblijfstatus? Of zit de nuance in de tendens dat ook immigratie een besmette term dreigt te worden?
Timmermans
Het stond er echt: Timmermans wil Europa behoeden voor de leugens van het populisme. Dat wordt een interessant optreden gezien de vele EU-leugens die de burger steeds beter begint te doorzien. Bovendien moet Timmermans oppassen dat hij zich niet schuldig maakt aan het beïnvloeden van nationale verkiezingen of het demoniseren van een politieke beweging. Hij zal dus met bewijzen moeten komen en daar is de EU nu juist uiterst onbetrouwbaar in gebleken, net als Timmermans zelf.
Wereldvreemd
Mevrouw Merkel is kennelijk zo wereldvreemd, dat ze niet in de gaten heeft hoe Duitsland zich al jaren aanpast aan buitenlandse invloeden. Daar is geen terrorist voor nodig. Druk vanuit Turkije, Brussel, Parijs en Athene is al toereikend. En de zwaar beveiligde Nieuwjaarsnacht in Keulen, de beveiliging van Kerstmarken elders en de absurde persconferenties met allerlei verantwoordelijken die betere asielmaatregelen beloven, tonen aan dat de samenleving zich geleidelijk onderwerpt aan een nieuwe, afgedwongen leefstijl. Dankzij een bestuursstijl van gezwets en verdoezeling.
ZZP-dilemma
Indien de regering van het fenomeen ZZP-er af wil, dan moet men dit gewoon zeggen. Ook buitenlanders kunnen dan als ‘zelfstandige’ bij onze uitzendbureaus terecht en de rest moet maar een vof of B.V. beginnen. Want het schimmige gedoe rond contracten levert niets op. Een ZZP-er werkt altijd op projectbasis; dus dit telkens even op papier zetten, is geen probleem. Daarmee ligt meteen vast dat hij voor eigen vervoer moet zorgen, een bedrijfsaansprakelijkheidsverzekering moet hebben, niet onder enige CAO valt, geen vakantiegeld of doorbetaling bij ziekte krijgt, eigen administratie moet voeren, een (btw)factuur moet indienen en pas na weken zijn geld ontvangt. Of hij ‘gereedschap’ (bouwlift, hoogwerker) van de opdrachtgever gebruikt, is verder niet relevant. Zelfs niet voor de belastingdienst.
——————————————–
Waarschuwing voor Wilders?
HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL TRY TO DESTROY TRUMP
Shortly before Thanksgiving, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote a column that should chill you to the bone.
Titled “Donald Trump’s Demand for Love,” Bruni said: “I had just shaken the president-elect’s normal-size hand and he was moving on to the next person when he wheeled around, took a half step back, touched my arm and looked me in the eye anew. ‘I’m going to get you to write some good stuff about me,’ Donald Trump said.”
Bruni is a fabulous writer, but if he ever writes good stuff about you, Mr. President-elect, YOU WILL HAVE FAILED.
I assume this was just our president-elect doing something he gets the least credit for, which is being nice. But you can never be too careful.
The Times is in total opposition to Trump’s stated goal to make America great again. Trump has got to know — not next year, but by 5 p.m. today — that anyone pursuing his agenda will incite rage, insanity and spitting blood from that newspaper.
There’s a long and tragic history of Republicans who won the war but lost the peace by trading results for respectability.
The first President Bush not only promised not to raise taxes, but also laid out the steps Democrats would take to get him to break that promise. “And the Congress will push me to raise taxes,” he said in his iconic 1988 convention speech, “and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them, ‘Read my lips: No new taxes.’”
He was a good prognosticator! Congress did exactly as he’d anticipated. But instead of saying “no,” Bush caved.
That betrayal cost the GOP its most popular issue. As the Times’ Michael Wines put it (shortly before Bush predictably lost his re-election bid), with the president’s sellout, Republicans gave up “a political weapon so fearsome that it had destroyed three Democratic presidential candidates in 12 years.”
The Times had spent months hectoring Bush about the “yawning deficit,” denouncing his “obdurate refusal” to raise taxes, and promising “political popularity” for the “needed” tax hike. But the moment Bush raised taxes, the Times couldn’t stop crowing about his broken promise.
That was always the whole point. Not the “yawning deficit.” Not raising revenue. But to get the GOP to give up its most potent issue.
Trump has just annihilated 16 far more experienced Republican rivals, the Clinton machine and the entire media/Hollywood/Wall Street complex by raising the one issue no other politician would touch: putting America’s interests first on immigration .
What promise do you think they want Trump to break?
Luckily for the country, Trump doesn’t seem obsessed with what the elites think of him. But his advisers include just the type of Republicans whose second-tier law schools make them particularly susceptible to the cheap respectability of establishment media approval.
Trump has been a politician for only a little more than one year. He has no experience with the tricks that will be played to get him to betray voters on his signature issue. The first president Bush knew what was coming — and he still broke his promise.
Manifestly, if anyone in Washington seriously wanted to build a wall, deport illegals, return criminal aliens to their own countries, end the anchor baby scam and prevent jihadists from immigrating here to kill Americans, it would have been done already.
Nearly every promise Trump made on immigration is 100 percent within the power of the president. For example:
It is already the president’s job, as commander in chief, to protect the borders.
It is already the Department of Defense’s job to build border walls.
It’s already the law that citizenship is not acquired by being born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien. (No Congress has ever passed such a law, nor has the Supreme Court ruled that they are.)
It is already the secretary of state’s duty to rescind visas from countries that refuse to take their criminals back.
It is already the president’s job to prohibit the entry of any class of immigrants he deems “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”
It is already the president’s job to remove immigrants who commit crimes, entered our country through fraud (i.e., every single refugee), are in the country illegally or who become public charges.
None of those things have ever been done before for one reason: The entire Washington establishment is unalterably opposed to enforcing our immigration laws.
Trump will have no trouble enacting the rest of his agenda. If congressional Republicans are good for anything, it is to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes and regulation, confirm good judges and protect the Second Amendment. No one but Trump would have done it, but not even Nancy Pelosi is going to attack Trump for keeping jobs in America.
Only when it comes to immigration will Trump be Gary Cooper, out there alone against every powerful entity in America. Just as he was during the campaign.
On immigration, Trump will be furiously opposed by: Democrats, Republicans, the permanent bureaucracy, the Chamber of Commerce, George Soros, The Wall Street Journal — in fact, the entire media, except four webpages, six bloggers and five talk-radio hosts — and hundreds of taxpayer-funded immigrant grievance groups. And that’s just off the top of my head.
He’ll even be opposed by his own hand-picked U.N. ambassador! (It is an amazing fact that at the 2016 State of the Union, both the Democratic president’s address, and the Republican governor’s response, attacked candidate Trump’s immigration proposals.)
There’s a reason millions of Americans were showing up at Trump’s rallies chanting, “Build the Wall!” and not, “End Obamacare!” “Cut taxes!” “Save the Second Amendment!” — or any other slogan that could have been chanted just as easily at a Jeb! Rally.
There are only a handful of people in the entire country with the knowledge and ability to enforce our immigration laws. Any Cabinet appointees likely to impress The New York Times aren’t going to get it done. They won’t have to expressly defy Trump. They just won’t do it.
Perhaps they’ll make some showy effort at deporting illegals — and then back down at the first La Raza lawsuit. Or they will allow career government lawyers to submit briefs in court that cite all the wrong cases. Or they’ll wait for Speaker Paul Ryan’s approval to do anything. Or they’ll be moved by a Nikki Haley speech about the vibrant diversity of Somali refugees. Or they’ll be scared off by Washington bureaucrats who say, You can’t do that!
But if Trump chooses from among the few people who know how to get it done (Kris Kobach, Kris Kobach or Kris Kobach), his promises will be kept. He can relax. He can spend all his time playing golf, living in Trump Tower, yelling at American CEOs trying to outsource jobs — and engaging in appalling conflicts of interest with his businesses.
He could even shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. (I propose GOP consultant Rick Wilson!)
Trump is down to his last wish from Aladdin. He can impress The New York Times, or he can make America great again. But he can’t do both.
COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK