September 20, 2016 · 1:05 am
The Muslim terrorist attacks over the weekend in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota provide another dose of vindication to Donald Trump’s worries about the threats posed by Muslim immigrants. It must be clear to Hillary Clinton that this issue—contrasted by her and her minions’ default nothing-to-see-here responses—could carry Trump to victory.
Could we see Clinton try, perhaps in the presidential debates, to co-opt Trump’s ownership of this issue by finally acknowledging the pattern of Islamic terrorism and recognizing that a specific ideology and specific group of identifiable people are at war with our civilization? It would only take a few words, and Clinton could probably craft an artful paragraph or two to produce the most headline-grabbing news out of a debate.
We know from their words and actions what Hillary Clinton, President Obama, the mainstream media, and the rest of the left think of terrorism:
- The U.S. is an evil hegemon that has oppressed the brown peoples of the world and must repent. Arabs and other Muslims are noble people with admirably exotic [collectivist] views and lifestyles.
- Only a selected few enlightened global visionaries, due to their life experiences and proper educations, have internalized the image of global utopia that is within our grasp, if only they may be allowed to bring to bear their benevolent understanding for the benefit of the rest of us. President Obama, of course, is the quintessential contemporary “Muslimist” (as Steve Sailer has coined) who, while perhaps not Muslim per se, can bridge cultures and allow us to vicariously bask in his understanding of the beauty of Islamic society.
- To fulfill the left’s prime directive of building a multicultural society in the U.S.—to achieve three interrelated goals of uplifting the other peoples of the world, making American society more progressive, and demonstrating our virtue as a people—is the most important movement on which we could embark. Hence a few or a few thousand dead prole Americans is a trivial price to pay to achieve this vision, which of course depends on Clinton’s election.
However, Clinton is also a smart politician, and she must be able to see that the American people—selfish bigots that we are—are not grasping this reality. Since she will say anything to get elected, it is possible that she will take the risk of modifying her language.
If she declares that the U.S. is under threat from concerted Muslim terrorism, there will certainly be a hushed outcry from the left. We can envision her briefing her followers in advance, telling them not to worry about her public rhetoric that has become necessary to win the election, just as she certainly did in her secretive speeches to Wall Street banks. Her private audiences will understand that her public pivot is just for show.
Such a tactic would be a significant test for the left, to see whether they are so blinded by their world view that they can’t adapt to win an election. Forget about challenging their core beliefs—that won’t happen—but it is conceivable that she could at least change her language for two months. Huma Abedin might pout, but she will join everyone in nodding and winking just to get over the finish line in November and then allowing Clinton to resume her regularly scheduled programming.
September 10, 2016 · 10:24 pm
It’s odd that we side with President Obama as he is facing the first veto override of his term. Though the fact that the bill passed both the House and the Senate unanimously is a hint of its perniciousness.
The bill, called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), would allow citizens who can convince a jury that they were victimized by terrorism to sue governments that they believe contributed to the terrorist acts. We agree with the high-minded reasons that both the Obama Administration and some of the Republicans’ best legal and foreign-policy minds put forth in illustrating the bill’s dangers: it undermines sovereign immunity, could prompt retaliatory lawfare from other countries, and could place Americans abroad at risk of being detained by countries where the divide between civil and criminal prosecution is not as clear as in America.
We also fret that—while we are not condoning our supposed allies like Saudi Arabia in creating the environment for and directly supporting attacks on the U.S.—subjecting more defendants to the whims of the U.S.’s tort system is not the definition of justice. Supporters of the bill reflexively cry that “it’s not about the money,” but we’re sure that the tort bar doesn’t see it that way.
The lawsuit industry undermines the U.S. economy every day via “jackpot justice,” in which it’s not that hard to employ emotionally-charged arguments to convince juries that some faceless, deep-pocket foreign defendant should pay up. The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard on such civil matters is a dangerous substitute to deal with complex issues that should be left to the international political process.
The bill, while not unconstitutional, violates the spirit of the American constitution’s visionary prohibition of Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws. JASTA strikes us as a ham-handed attempt to scapegoat for imprecise reasons a defined boogeyman after the fact—a a sophisticated form of mob rule that these constitutional provisions were designed to deter.
Most bills that pass Congress unanimously are trivial, with the only down-side being wasted legislative resources. When they are not trivial, such laws almost always increase government and erode liberty, as the political class generally agrees on these values as opposed to their converses. Unanimous laws generally fit the pattern of benefiting from emotional resonance—as in the case of JASTA—and being seen as having little down-side.*
JASTA is not trivial and carries significant down-sides, though it does fit the general pattern of feel-good unanimous legislation and all of its ills.
*We would like to see a historian write a book on unanimously-passed legislation and the dissenters (like former Rep. Ron Paul (Tx.)) who have stood alone against them. Such a work would certainly be filled with anecdotes that would educate and often amuse political junkies.
September 10, 2016 · 9:06 pm
We long for the quaint unspoken rule that politicians don’t engage in partisan attacks or criticize their political opponents from overseas. President Obama has made a sport of eviscerating this decorum.
Similarly, Hillary Clinton declared in an interview on Israeli TV that ISIS is “rooting for Donald Trump’s victory.” The terrorists, according to Clinton, are praying, “Please, Allah, make Trump president of America.” The illogic of this claim aside, the mainstream media failed to take Clinton to task for fear-mongering and attacking from overseas the patriotism of an American politician—as they always do while attempting to criticize Republicans for such perceived affronts.
For example, the media came down hard on Trump for mild praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially that uttered in an interview with American media icon (and Trump friend) Larry King. They piled on the he-said-this-on-Russian-media trope because King’s show happens to be syndicated on Russia Today, a government-controlled outlet.
This criticism of Trump for a non-offense compared to silence on Clinton shows a double standard outrageous even by MSM standards.
September 8, 2016 · 7:27 pm
The most obvious way for a politician (or non-politician) to explain his ostensible waffling on support for President Bush’s war on Iraq beginning in 2003 is to say that it was a reasonable idea at the time, but, given the history, he wishes that we hadn’t begun it. This result was not inevitable from the outset, but rather came about because of our insane rules of engagement—in which President Bush tied one had behind our proverbial backs and then President Obama tied the second hand too. Moreover, Obama made the fatal mistake of promising to withdraw and then doing so before the job was finished, erasing gains that we had made after the surge toward the end of Bush’s term.
This seems like a simple and valid reading of history (and is our position). Yet the media never ask the right question. At Wednesday’s “commander-in-chief” forum for the presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton duly said, “I think the decision to go to war in Iraq, and I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake.”
Perhaps it’s implicit, but she didn’t explain why. Nor do the media ever drill down on this point. The hard left would say that many members of Congress who voted for the war were simply duped by the Administration’s false intelligence. But very few people in either party offer the view that the decision to go to war was a mistake only in light of how it turned out due to conscious decisions once we were at war, and why that is the case—simply circumstance or bad luck, the realization that America simply doesn’t have the will to do what it takes to win a war, or President Obama’s fecklessness? Even putting aside the issue of blame, is our polity not mature enough to understand that it is possible that an action might have been warranted at the time but simply didn’t work out as we had hoped—and that doesn’t mean it was a mistake?
There are different types of mistakes: (1) decisions that were inherently erroneous to begin with, (2) those that were simply calculated risks but didn’t turn out well, and (3) those that might have been right but in which execution failed (and perhaps should have been predicted to fail).
“Mistake” is an odd word; it has acquired an imprecise definition in common usage, though the dictionary definition seems to mirror (1) above. Is buying a lottery ticket a mistake if you don’t win? We would say no. Getting married to your ex-wife? Probably yes. Launching “New Coke”? Hard to say.
September 1, 2016 · 7:32 pm
The mainstream media, especially the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN, has been getting more hysterical each day during Donald Trump’s campaign. Their coverage has probably hurt Trump at the margins, though the returns to the manufactured outrage are diminishing. The conservative “never-Trump” crowd is not much more credible or insightful.
There is no doubt that these outlets are investing heavily to dig up whatever they can, while the bar for outrage among persuadable voters grows higher and the MSM increasingly finds itself shouting inside an echo chamber inhabited by its already-virtuous anti-Trump readers. What might they come up with?
We previously speculated that the media would pursue the tried-and-true strategy of linking Trump’s family to the Nazis, however dubious any connection might be. No doubt they are soliciting any leaks they can find about Trump’s health and finances.
It’s astonishing that someone who has employed thousands of people over the years in the inherently rough-and-tumble realm of urban real estate development hasn’t been tarred with claims of unlawful business practices. (A few stories about the visa statuses of Melania Trump or models he’s engaged don’t amount to much.) No alleged unpaid wages, illegal employees, discrimination, shady permits, safety code violations, or, the holy grail, sexual harassment by some Trump office manager? At a minimum, no disgruntled former employees who will complain about what a horrible boss he is? (The public seems to understand that a few lawsuits and bankruptcies among thousands of real-estate ventures are normal in America.) In reality, all of the evidence suggests that Trump is an exemplary businessman and employer.
We are holding our breath awaiting whatever scurrilous charges the press comes up with. Perhaps it will be the conservative media, which is less lazy and even more motivated to stop Trump than is the mainstream media, that strikes hardest.