Tag Archives: David French

Racial Madness

Four blacks kidnapped and tortured a white mentally-challenged man while using “terrible racist statements.” (Torture streamed on Facebook Live!)

racial-madness

The Washington Post suggested it was inconsequential. CNN called it a “hazing.” One CNN panelist actually blamed Trump! NBC argued the thugs were not “truly trying to be criminal.” (Imagine saying that about the abominable Dylann Roof.)

The Chicago police refused to call it a hate crime. When is a hate crime not a hate crime? When its committed by blacks against a white male.

In related news, a university professor tweeted “All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide.” This professor remains employed.

Racial Healing Aborted

Barack Obama promised racial healing in America and racial tensions reached new heights under his presidency.

Despite Obama winning the presidency twice in a majority white nation, the racial grievance industry took control of the national debate. (No, not the KKK; the BLM.)

Phony Black Lives Matter narratives filled the airwaves, Internet, and social media.

Enslaved and energized by identity politics – and rejecting the promises and realities of Martin Luther King’s famous dream – the Black Lives Matter movement employed a range of racial myths to create a constituency and gain power and prestige. (Let’s not forget the money.)

quote-abraham-lincoln-freed-the-black-man-in-many-ways-dr-king-freed-the-white-man-how-did-ronald-reagan-137-80-36

Some of these narratives (e.g., “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”) have been proven totally false, yet they retain a visceral power which overwhelms reason and reality.

From Ferguson to Baltimore and across the nation, Black Lives Matter propaganda has destroyed communities and created chaos.

Riots are called “protests.” Murder is deemed “social justice.”

Root Causes

So-called “white privilege” is the latest bogeyman. But blacks are not victims of a fictitious “institutionalized white racism” or presumed “white privilege.”

Rather, some blacks are victims of a fifty-year-old War on Poverty and a welfare state which has become the new plantation – created by Democrats who treat them as children. The paternalistic state gone awry.

The welfare statenot white racism – has created generational poverty, generational broken homes, and a cultural of dependency justified by allegations that blacks are victims of white racism and the legacy of slavery.

Consequently, perceiving themselves to be victims, many feel entitled to whatever they can get from the government, becoming dependent upon that government. With it, comes rage against the injustices they perceive have been perpetrated against them. And with that comes a culture of irresponsibility.

quote-white-liberals-are-the-most-racist-people-there-are-because-they-put-blacks-in-a-box-benjamin-carson-93-91-53

David French observes, “When you celebrate thugs, you get more thugs.” He laments a “depraved culture” and “breakdown in law and order.”

French concludes: “Our nation’s social fabric is fraying — nowhere more than in Chicago. This is the Left’s city, a foundation of its national power. How many more people have to die before it changes course?”

Contemporary dysfunctional black communities are not rooted in America’s founding. Rather, one need only look to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and subsequent iterations of the welfare state and the adoption of progressive policies and political correctness to see the development and escalation of dysfunctional pathologies in some black (and a growing number of white) communities.

America No Longer Needs to Apologize for Slavery

My MSNBC Op-Ed (7/2/97), entitled, “America has acknowledged mistakes,” is as relevant today as it was twenty years ago. Here it is:

Kimberle Crenshaw writes about passionate “white opposition” to a formal apology for slavery (neglecting to mention the many blacks who oppose it as well). While citing their objections (in her terms: “personal denial,” “finger pointing,” “traditional historicizing,” and “new-age globalizing”), she fails to refute any of those arguments. She doesn’t even try.

Instead, Crenshaw questions the motives of those opposed to an apology, saying it “reflects a deep unwillingness to desegregate American history and to integrate American self-identity.” Self-flagellation is not my self-identity.

Crenshaw contrasts post-slave, post-apartheid societies with non-slave, non-apartheid ones, failing to note that all societies are at least post-slave and, even today, many societies remain slave societies. (Why is the Left always willing to condemn America but praise our enemies?)

Crenshaw accuses the right of explaining away the black underclass as a result of “inherent characteristics.” Wrong! The right recognizes that the welfare state promotes self-destructive behaviors and the underclass is enslaved to the welfare state. Let’s forget apologies and free the underclass.

Crenshaw desires “historical closure.” Most Americans have experienced “closure” with past slavery. Constantly tearing at the scab only causes the wound to bleed.

Par for the course, Crenshaw criticizes America’s Founding Fathers for expressing the ideals of liberty for all while condoning slavery. No one disputes the divergence of these ideals and their implementation.

Crenshaw insists that whites – and American culture itself – are in a state of denial about slavery (and other historical atrocities). Denial? Our cultural elites positively revel in past American misdeeds (while glossing over our triumphs and glories).

Is Crenshaw really suggesting that Americans are denying historical slavery? Is she subtly suggesting a moral equivalence between this perceived denial and those who deny the Holocaust?

Tragically, while her ancestors may have been enslaved in chains, Crenshaw (and others) have enslaved themselves to the past. She desires “a reopening of American historical memory,” as if anyone could “forget” American slavery. She wants an acknowledgement of America’s “tragic mistakes” but Americans have already acknowledged them.

We are fast approaching a new millennium. Isn’t it time to put the past behind us, to let the wounds heal, to live for the future? Until we do, this schizophrenic identity crisis will only exacerbate the already tumultuous times we are living in.

Advertisements

Hillary Lost by Every Measure

The worst possible Democrat candidate lost to the worst possible Republican candidate. For good or ill, President Trump is the outcome.

hillary-lost-by-every-measure

Some Democrats have gone berserk, claiming the will of the people is being thwarted by the nefarious Electoral College. Both history and logic elude them.

David French remarked on the historical nature and rationale for the Electoral College, arguing that it “is a wise and just way to elect the leader of 50 diverse states with different political cultures and different political needs. Giving voters in a few densely populated urban centers the power to swamp the electoral desires of the vast heartland in perpetuity would create its own form of instability. The Electoral College is a modest, though important, way to preserve a delicate balance of power between competing political constituencies.”

French also observes that the #NotMyPresident “protestors” actually engage a “absurd notion” because “neither candidate was playing [to win the popular vote game].” French notes, “Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes.”

Precisely correct. Both Trump and Hillary campaigned state by state for electoral votes, not the popular vote. They courted swing states, targeted battleground states, and sought to turn the color of one state into another. In other words, both candidates targeted states, not the electorate.

Their entire strategies were based upon the rules governing our election process. And Hillary lost. By those rules.

Hillary Also Lost the Popular Vote in More States

(The following is a Facebook post by Adele Bloom, used by permission, emphasis added.)

I’m seeing a lot of posts stating that Clinton won the popular vote hands down and we should, therefore, scrap the electoral college and go with popular vote only. These allegations are ludicrous and I am going to attempt to explain why using good old-fashioned math.

First, with regard to the electoral college, the process was established in 1787, shortly after the birth of this country, as a means to ensure that the less heavily populated parts of the country would receive equitable representation. A “popular vote” election process would give absolute power and control over the entire country to only those people living in the more heavily populated urban areas, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, and Miami, just to name a few. How can people in those urban areas have any idea how to adequately determine what is good and beneficial for the dairy farmers in Wisconsin, or the ranchers in Wyoming, or the citrus growers in central Florida, or the grains farmers (wheat, corn, etc.) in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska? This is why the electoral college was established.

Second, Clinton did not win the popular vote by a landslide (some of the posts I’ve seen have indicated that Clinton had a million votes more than Trump). In reality, this election was very close in the popular vote (Trump 59,611,678 vs. Clinton 59,814,018, a difference of only 202,340), but not in the electoral college (Trump 279 vs. Clinton 228). In addition, there are 3 states that are still counting (Arizona – Trump is leading, Michigan – Trump is leading, and New Hampshire – Hillary is leading.) However, since we are a country divided by states and each state deserves equitable representation, without taking into account the electoral college’s guidelines of a certain number of delegates per state based on that state’s population but merely look at the percentage of votes received for each candidate in each state, the end result can be determined by some very simple calculations.

The following is the state-by-state breakdowns of the popular vote for each:

Alabama – Trump – 63% / 35% (won by 588,841)

Alaska – Trump – 53% / 38% (won by 37,408)

Arizona – Trump – 50% / 45% (winning by 84,526)

Arkansas – Trump – 60% / 34% (won by 299,175)

Florida – Trump – 49% / 48% (won by 119,770)

Georgia – Trump – 51% / 46% (won by 231,323)

Idaho – Trump – 59% / 28% (won by 217,522)

Indiana – Trump – 57% / 38% (won by 525,823)

Iowa – Trump – 52% / 42% (won by 148,133)

Kansas – Trump – 57% / 36% (won by 241,221)

Kentucky – Trump – 63% / 33% (won by 574,108)

Louisiana – Trump – 58% / 38% (won by 398,469)

Michigan – Trump – 48% / 47% (winning by 11,837)

Mississippi – Trump – 58% / 40% (won by 215,532)

Missouri – Trump – 57% / 38% (won by 530,864)

Montana – Trump – 57% / 36% (won by 99,447)

Nebraska – Trump – 60% / 34% (won by 211,961)

North Carolina – Trump – 51% / 47% (won by 177,529)

North Dakota – Trump – 64% / 28% (won by 122,607)

Ohio – Trump – 52% / 44% (won by 454,983)

Oklahoma – Trump – 65% / 29% (won by 528,146)

Pennsylvania – Trump – 49% / 48% (won by 68,236)

South Carolina – Trump – 55% / 41% (won by 294,142)

South Dakota – Trump – 62% / 32% (won by 110,259)

Tennessee – Trump – 61% / 35% (won by 650,292)

Texas – Trump – 53% / 43% (won by 813,774)

Utah – Trump – 47% / 28% (won by 152,148)

West Virginia – 69% / 26% (won by 298,741)

Wisconsin – 48% / 47% (won by 27,257)

Wyoming – Trump – 70% / 22% (won by 118,299)

In the 30 states that Trump won (or is winning), he averaged 56.6% of the total votes cast and Clinton averaged 37.5% of the total votes cast. (Trump had a total of 8,352,373 more votes than Clinton in these states.)

California – Clinton – 61% / 33% (won by 2,518,729)

Colorado – Clinton – 47% / 45% (won by 50,614)

Connecticut – Clinton – 54% / 42% (won by 185,441)

Delaware – Clinton – 53% / 42% (won by 50,478)

District of Columbia – Clinton – 93% / 4% (won by 248,670)

Hawaii – Clinton – 62% / 30% (won by 138,012)

Illinois – Clinton – 55% / 39% (won by 859,319)

Maine – Clinton – 48% / 45% (won by 19,894)

Maryland – Clinton – 61% / 35% (won by 624,305)

Massachusetts – Clinton – 61% / 34% (won by 881,699)

Minnesota – Clinton – 47% / 45% (won by 42,947)

Nevada – Clinton – 48% / 46% (won by 26,434)

New Hampshire – Clinton – 48% / 47% (winning by 1,437)

New Jersey – Clinton – 55% / 42% (won by 462,853)

New Mexico – Clinton – 48% / 40% (won by 64,849)

New York – Clinton – 59% / 37% (won by 1,505,863)

Oregon – Clinton – 52% / 41% (won by 192,125)

Rhode Island – 55% / 40% (won by 59,635)

Vermont – Clinton – 61% / 33% (won by 83,045)

Virginia – Clinton – 50% / 45% (won by 185,689)

Washington – Clinton – 56% / 38% (won by 380,388)

In the 51 states (D.C. is counted as a state for election purposes, although it isn’t officially a state) that Clinton won (or is winning), she averaged 55.9% of the total votes cast and Trump averaged 38.2% of the total votes cast. (Clinton had 8,582,426 more votes than Trump in these states.)

Based on percentages alone, with Trump getting 56.6% of the votes in the states he won and 38.2% of the votes in the states he lost, that gives him an average of 47.4% of the total votes cast in all states. Likewise, with Clinton getting 55.9% of the votes in the states she won and 37.5% of the votes in the states she lost, that gives her an average of 46.7% of the total votes cast. Therefore, based on the popular vote alone in a state-by-state analysis, although Clinton had more total number of votes (predominantly due to the heavy populations in California and New York), Trump had the highest average percentage of total votes cast per state overall.

However, as shown above, even when calculating the results on a state-by-state basis (without taking into consideration number of delegates per state based on the electoral college), the end result is the same. If the winner is, instead, determined by number of states won based solely on popular vote and not on delegates, then Trump had the majority of the votes in 30 states. Hillary had the majority of the votes in only 20 states, plus D.C.

Therefore, based on basic math, Trump still wins a state-by-state competition 30 to 21.

Transgender Wars: The Left Has Barely Begun to Fight

In an eye-opening piece on the current transgender war, David French concludes, “The Left has barely begun to fight.”

Transgender Wars

French argues that the current bathroom regulations battle is merely the opening salvo of a war to further “transform American culture and values,” including the erosion and destruction of orthodox Christianity.

French begins by quoting Vanita Gupta, “the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice,” who claimed, “Here are the facts. Transgender men are men – they live, work, and study as men. Transgender women are women – they live, work, and study as women.”

Really? This is utter nonsense on a par with believing that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with welfare.

The folly of Obama’s Justice Department is self-evident, as French so ably noted, “according to the DOJ, it is a simple ‘fact’ that a man can have a menstrual cycle, that a woman can have a penis, and that men can get pregnant.”

The Obama administration wants to use the full weight of the law to force not just compliance with its crazy experiment in social engineering. It also seeks celebration of its views.

In his column, French highlighted some of the dangers every American faces under this tyrannical regime.

Disagreement will be regarded as “hate speech,” punishable by law. Non-compliance will be regarded as “discrimination,” punishable by law. Dissidents will be treated like Nazis and white supremacists, marginalizing mainstream views.

David French’s cogent and compelling column is well worth reading, contemplating, and acting upon.

CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens

[Part I – “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)[1] – highlighted Britain’s current rebellion against the European Union. Americans would do well to emulate their growing fervor for freedom.]

We have seen why so many Brits seek to flee the European Union, whose centralized, supranational government prevents Britain from protecting itself from the immigration crisis and terrorist threat contained therein.

CPAC2016-11

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Brussels (HQ of the EU), National Review noted the inescapable nexus between the E.U.’s policies and the fruit of those policies. The Editors wrote (emphasis added):

“In one part of the city reside EU bureaucrats who continue to promulgate their fanciful transnational ideals, increasingly against the evidence; in another part are roiling ghettos populated largely by Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East, many of whom have a very different vision for the future of Europe … A half century of effectively open borders, a refusal to require assimilation of immigrants into a robust notion of European culture, and an unyielding fidelity to multicultural pieties have resulted in cities fractured along ethnic lines and, as Brussels officials have admitted in the hours since Tuesday morning’s attack, overwhelmed by potential terror threats.”

Terrorism is not the only threat posed by edicts from the European Union. Freedom itself is at stake!

Prototype World Government

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, offered his insight into the dangers of a centralized government within a supranational context. Those insights are extremely relevant to the ongoing battle for power within the United States between the various branches of government as well as the struggle over federalism vs. statism. Hint: Liberty is losing.

According to Woolfe, the European Union has become a “super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants.” The bureaucratic state – unelected and unaccountable to the People – enjoys an ever-increasing degree of control over the lives of the citizens of the European Union.

I asked Woolfe how that came about. He explained, “After the Second World War, people quite rightly no longer wanted to have their children murdered in wars against each other. So they decided that they wanted to have an organization where countries come together to sort out their differences, a little bit like the United Nations.”

However, the founders of the European Union sought the abolition of “populist governments” who are elected by the people. To achieve that goal, they created “the European Union, in which the body called ‘The Commission,’ made of up civil servants, made the laws for the whole of Europe.”

Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic,[2] highlighted the consequence of these “two interrelated phenomena” (emphasis added): “the European integration process on the one hand, and the evolution of the European economic and social system on the other – both of which have been undergoing a fundamental change in the context of the ‘brave new world’ of our permissive, anti-market, redistributive society, a society that has forgotten the ideas on which the greatness of Europe was built.”

Woolfe added, “What they did over a period of forty years, they slowly took powers, through different treaties, from each of the nation-states.” Woolfe contends, “The European Union is becoming like a colonialist empire. It’s almost like the prototype of a world government.”

12938235_497864707067616_986690819924296611_n

The Unbridled Power of Bureaucrats

Who runs this proto-colonialist empire? Bureaucrats!

As Woolfe put it, “Imagine the idea that civil servants – not elected politicians – can make your laws. Imagine that those laws can never be changed, can never be repealed. Imagine that government lobbyists and government affairs are the ones that talk to these civil servants and tell them what laws to initiate. That’s exactly what happens in the European Union. There is no people power. It’s very much bureaucratic power.”

Woolfe argues that the European Union is in embryonic form what globalists have always wanted to achieve. Woolfe almost sounds like a Bernie Sanders because he discerns a collusion between corporate Europe and the bureaucrats who make the laws.

Woolfe put it this way: “Many of us would argue that the fact that you have the large corporations who can game the system by basically negotiating their own laws with civil servants who then pass it down to the nation-states to enact. And if you’re a citizen in Germany who wants to have controlled borders, as you can see people flooding into Europe from all over the world in the migration crisis that we have, you’ve got no one who can stop it because you have no governments who can control it. It’s the EU that does it. If you want to have lower taxation, if you want to have less regulation, you can’t change your politicians to do that because it’s the civil servants – the Commission – that is making those laws.”

Woolfe concluded with a warning to America, one that is, sadly, decades too late. He queried, “And just think how dangerous that is to the United States if this idea crosses the Atlantic.”

Origins of the Statist Welfare State  

In the 1870s, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the modern welfare state, with its byzantine bureaucracies and labyrinth of administrative laws. Bismarck’s model became the blueprint for Western European nations and also for progressives in the United States of America. At the heart of his model is centralized planning by elites made up of the self-anointed “best and brightest” who think that they know better than we do how to live our lives.

Philip Hamburger observed,[3] “This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.”

John Daniel Davidson has observed that “The father of American progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, saw this coming.” Wilson “thought the U.S. Constitution was outdated and that America needed a professional, Prussian-style administrative state, and that the chief hindrance to this in America was popular sovereignty.” Wilson believed that “expert administrators” were superior to the will of the People.

This is, of course, the antithesis of the individual liberty for which the Founding Fathers fought and the apotheosis for all those who oppose the Constitution and the framework of our Republic as envisioned by its Framers. Dennis Prager recently noted, “The size of the federal government and its far-reaching meddling in and control over Americans’ lives are the very thing America was founded to avoid.”

Either the rule of law by representative government or law by executive and administrative fiat will prevail. They cannot coexist. Peaceful coexistence is a myth.

Absolute Power Wielded by Statists

In contrast to statists who favor administrative law, our Founders and Framers opposed the exercise of absolute power. Hamburger noted, “They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights.”

Consequently, “Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.”

Administrative law, wrote Hamburger, is extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated. It is in defiance of our system of checks and balances which is expressly designed to limit and diffuse power. According to Hamburger (emphasis added):

  • “Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms – not through statutes but through regulations – and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications.”
  • “It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law – which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges.”
  • “And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – in administrative agencies.”

Hamburger added, “Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth.”

Power of the Pen, Phone, and Judicial Activism

Jonah Goldberg concurs, writing, “The growth of the administrative state and the encroachment of federal law into every nook and cranny of local life has been a century-long project of the Left.”

What President Obama couldn’t get passed in Congress he has sought to enact through the power of his pen and his phone. He has bypassed Congress through unconstitutional executive actions on immigration and other matters. Further, he has politicized the IRS, EPA, HHS, Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to target his political foes and implement his contra-Congress agenda (the will of the People be damned!).

Even before the advent of Obama administration, Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn lamented[4] that “We live in a more liberated age, the age of bureaucratic government. Here rules abound in such profusion that they seem to overbear the laws of nature themselves. So it is with honoring the Constitution these days. We honor it more avidly than ever in the breach of its restraints, but at the same time we pay it the respect of mandatory, hectic, and empty observance. Except for our dishonoring of it, we have never honored it so much.”

Moreover, for decades, several activist Justices have tilted the Supreme Court away from the Constitution and toward unbridled power by non-elected bureaucrats. Goldberg noted, “in many respects the Supreme Court is now more powerful than the presidency. It’s certainly far, far, far less democratic. We appoint justices for life and many of their decisions cannot be overturned by the Congress, or the people, short of a constitutional convention.”

Death of Federalism and Freedom by the Stroke of a 1,000 Pens

Obamacare exemplifies and is representative of all that is wrong with administrative law. Case in point: The whole power of the federal government is intractably opposed to and wielded against charitable work performed by the Little Sisters of the Poor.

David French pointed out (emphasis added) “it’s important to understand that the Sisters are not challenging a law passed by Congress. Instead, the contraception mandate is a rule concocted by bureaucrats. When Congress passed Obamacare it intentionally passed the statute with a number of vague directives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) interpreted and expanded through the regulatory rulemaking process. Thus, the Obamacare statute itself does not contain a contraceptive mandate. Instead, it merely requires employers to ‘provide coverage’ for ‘preventive services’ for women, including ‘preventive care.’”

These unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats have “exempted vast numbers of employers from its requirements – sometimes for mere convenience. It grandfathered existing plans that did not cover contraceptives, exempted small firms, and exempted ‘religious employers.’”

However, they define that term “so narrowly that it applied mainly to entities such as churches and synagogues, not to religious schools, hospitals, or charities – entities that are motivated by faith, often require employees to share the organization’s faith commitment, and ordinarily receive much the same level of religious-freedom protection as houses of worship.”

A Time for Choosing

Ronald Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, should be revisited by all lovers of liberty. The 2016 election is of paramount importance and freedom itself hangs in the balance. Indeed, this election is about survival.[5] Will we elect a fraud and a mountebank, Donald Trump,[6] or an official Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton[7] or Bernie Sanders) – statists all?

Or will we choose the only constitutional conservative in the race, Ted Cruz?[8]

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[9] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[10]]

Update: The current tyrannical nature of the Obama administration and its rule imposed by unelected bureaucrats to force the American people to adopt a radical agenda foisted on them is perfectly illustrated by the Justice Department’s edicts regarding transgender-friendly bathrooms. Rich Lowry calls it the Bathroom Putsch. Lowry decries “middling bureaucrats [who] impose their will on the nation,” writing, “The transgender edict is a perfect distillation of the Obama administration’s centralizing reflex, high-handed unilateral rule, and burning desire to push the boundaries of cultural change as far as practical in its remaining time in office.”

Update: The absurdity of the bureaucratic state is epitomized by federal, state and local governments who are currently waging a war on illegal lemonade stands run by children! Kevin Williamson notes, “We are ruled by power-mad buffoons.”

Update: Wesley J. Smith writes: “The political left loves the Bureaucratic State because it allows unelected and democratically unaccountable “experts” to be in control–for our own good, of course.” Smith exposes how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is invading your privacy and intruding into your health care!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[2]               Vaclav Klaus, “The Crisis of the European Union: Causes and Significance,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, July/August 2011, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-of-the-european-union-causes-and-significance/.

[3]               Philip Hamburger, “The History and Danger of Administrative Law,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, September 2014, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/.

[4]               Larry P. Arnn, “A Return to the Constitution,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, November 2007, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/a-return-to-the-constitution/.

[5]               See “CPAC: This Election is About Survival” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dO.

[6]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[7]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[8]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

[9]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[10]             See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

Bully Boy Trump!

The bully, Donald Trump, proved himself just a bloviating boy. In the end, bullies usually do.

David French related two key moments in the Houston debate.

Bull Boy Trump

First, The Donald insisted that Rubio “Be quiet. Just be quiet.” Why? Trump fears the truth, especially about himself.

As French put it, “An alpha male commands respect; a bully tries to rule by fear. But when no one is actually afraid, the bully looks foolish. When the bully demands silence but instead receives a sarcastic retort, he reveals that that his ‘strength’ was a mirage.”

George Will puts it this way: “Like all bullies, Trump is a coward, and like all those who feel the need to boast about being strong and tough, he is neither.”

Second, The Donald insisted that Cruz apologize. Why? Trump wants the truth, especially about himself, to go away. Trump wants to suppress the truth! Intimidation is his primary tactic to achieve that end.

French noted, “Once again, the bully made his demand, this time for an apology. Cruz refused to comply, and went on to make exactly the right point: that Trump would be the Democrats’ best ‘Republican’ friend.”

Rubio correctly characterized Trump as a “con artist,” a truth many have heralded since before Trump launched his presidential campaign. Cruz astutely noted that Trump cares nothing for the Constitution and would be a Barack Obama in whiteface.

As I and others have pointed out before, Trump is a braggart and a bully who holds neither conservative principles nor a Christian ethos. Jonah Goldberg argues, “His cheap macho posturing and boasting is simply tacky.”

Trump is, as Andrew McCarthy describes, “a fraud – a liberal Democrat posing as the Republican savior.” Transfixed by Trump, some people still “blindly worship” him as their “Savior”!

McCarthy outlines, on issue after issue, the fraudulent nature of Trump’s politics, persona, and character.

It is important to stress Trump’s own purported self-image, concocted for the moment, to garner votes. After the Houston debate, he claimed, “I’m a strong Christian.” On another occasion, he claimed, “nobody reads the Bible more than me.” Goldberg noted, “Either Donald Trump believes what he said, or he doesn’t. If he does believe this, he’s sufficiently delusional to disqualify himself for public office. If he doesn’t believe this, he thinks his conservative Christian supporters are morons.”

Trump also alleges, “I’m very conservative,” adding, “I’m the most conservative person in the world” on a host of issues. Even New York Magazine called him out on that one.

But Trump is following in the footsteps of his consigliere, Ann Coulter, who regards herself as both an exemplary conservative and extraordinary Christian. Coulter boasts, “I’m like the conservative ayatollah” and “I’m an extraordinarily good Christian.”

As an example of her good judgment and proof of her conservative and Christian credentials, Coulter said that she would actually marry Trump if he were available. Maybe they should (after his fourth divorce). They are made for each other.

Burning Down Your Own House

David French’s headline is prescient: “‘Burn It All Down’ Is Not the Answer, Trump Fans.”

Have Americans lost the American spirit? Have Christians forsaken their faith? Have Conservatives abandoned their principles?

Burning Down Own House

In his column, French pointed out the obvious – at least obvious to those whose reason has not been replaced by irrational anger: It is far easier to destroy than to build. America’s Founders built America. The American experience is one of building and creating, not burning and destroying.

A strikingly high percentage of even evangelical voters are siding with Trump, not because they approve of his policies or his character, but out of pique at both political parties.

But is destroying the GOP without a replacement truly Christian, Conservative, or American?

French observes (emphasis added):

“As the evidence mounts that Trump isn’t exactly channeling justifiable conservative (or even populist) anger for constructive ends, Trump’s fans have found themselves reduced to a single argument in his defense: Even if he’s wrong on substance and they reject his personal values, at least he’ll ‘burn it all down.’ He’ll wreck the broken system and destroy a failed party.

But French does the unthinkable! He actually resorts to history, logic, and principles!

French responds to this destructive ethos pervading American culture and politics, writing, “Yet it’s hard to think of an answer more antithetical to the spirit of the American Revolution and our Constitution than ‘burn it all down.’” French notes that the American colonists, Founding Fathers, and Framers of the Constitution faced “a crisis far graver than the crises we face today,” and, instead of pursuing destructive goals, built a great nation.

French warns, “The torch and pitchfork, meanwhile, are instruments of the French revolutionary, of the nihilist who lives only to take revenge on his enemies, with a will to power but no interest in justice.” He adds, “’burn, baby, burn’ is the language of the Left.”

Plato referred to this as “canvas cleansing” with the idea being to destroy everything and then create a utopia from scratch. (It never works. Ask the victims of any socialist regime in history.)

The vapidity of Trump supporters who seek to bring down the Republican Old Guard is countered by French with lucidity (emphasis added):

“Replace men who surrender to Planned Parenthood with a man who embraces Planned Parenthood? Replace men who supported a path to legalization with a man who supports amnesty? Replace men who failed to stop Obamacare with a man who embraces single-payer health care? Nominate a man who believes in Iraq War conspiracy theories to confront the party that spawned those theories? Meet the new boss. He’ll be the same as the old.”

French cautions (emphasis added), “An American revolution isn’t a temper tantrum. It’s hard work. It’s anger channeled into virtue. Trump represents anger stripped of virtue. He will burn the GOP, but what will he build in its place?

Trump’s ascent – in a nation which opposes his New York values and desires people of character and integrity – is shocking!

We must eschew the “torch and pitchfork” and, instead, have faith in our principles and our God, championing people of character and integrity who love God, love our Country, and love the Constitution!

Left Fixated on Mythical, White, Right-Wing Extremists!

The Left has gone bonkers again, this time over the Oregon rancher standoff.

Mythical

As reported by Infowars (emphasis added):

“Numerous voices are calling for a literal bloodbath in Oregon – and the exercise of unilateral government power to kill the individuals involved, including supporters. It is an armed and highly-charged, but so far peaceful situation that is, nonetheless, rooted firmly in civil disobedience and principle. But that hasn’t stopped opponents from calling for them to be treated like domestic terrorists.”

The Left is incoherently outraged, making spurious racial charges and demonizing whites, conservatives, law enforcement, and the media over alleged racial and political bias in favor of whites and conservatives. (What world do they live in?)

In the Age of Islamic Terrorists, the Left continues to be obsessed with alleged white, right-wing extremists! Why this obsession? Two reasons. One – they are white.[1] Two – they are conservative. But are they extremists? In the mind of the Left, yes. To more rational human beings, no.

Salon Leads the Charge!

Headline: “No happy ending in Oregon: We can’t reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence”

How is not wantonly killing protesters engaged in legitimate, peaceful, civil disobedience rewarding them? They have a right to protest! (First Amendment: “the right to peaceably assemble.”)

How often do “white, right-wing extremists” “pull a gun and threaten violence?”

The writers at Salon apparently think it is very often.

But, are these justice-seeking ranchers really extremists? And, are they threatening violence? No and no. They are engaged in a peaceful protest, an act of civil disobedience which, if conducted by liberals, would be treated as a noble act of social justice.

Salon’s lead paragraph claimed that the ranchers “are protesting perceived overreach from the federal government.”

Except, of course, the federal overreach is far more than perceived. It is very, very real. The convicted ranchers have already served time for trumped-up charges.

Salon graciously declined to call them “terrorists,” preferring the term “separatists,” because of “the group’s refusal to acknowledge the federal government”

Except, of course, the so-called “separatists” want neither separation nor an emasculated federal government. They want a federal government which operates within the framework of the Constitution.

Salon then compared these white “separatists” “with black protesters and Occupy Wall Street.” Salon claimed that the encampments of “peaceful, unarmed [Occupy Wall Street] protesters” “were brutally dismantled by law enforcement. Police didn’t hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and batons to clear them out.”

Except, of course, Occupy Wall Street activists were far from peaceful and it often took weeks for the government to respond. Indeed, OWS encampments occupied entire parks in the nation’s capital, and other U.S. cities, for months!

Salon also claimed, “Nor was there any hesitation to call in the National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in Baltimore. So far, the Malheur occupiers are meeting no such resistance.”

Except, of course, the Baltimore “protesters” were violent rioters and looters committing mayhem while Baltimore authorities actually dillydallied in seeking assistance, choosing instead to give them “space to destroy.” The rioters wanted to purge the city.[2] In contrast, the so-called “separatists” have harmed and threatened no one.

Having made a false equivalence while distorting the facts, Salon then pitched its message:

“This discrepancy is important. Peaceful, left-wing protesters are fair game for state violence. But when armed anti-government zealots seize federal property and promise to defend themselves, law enforcement takes time for tact, maybe even negotiation.”

Salon fabricated so-called “state violence” against allegedly “Peaceful, left-wing protesters.” The actual violence of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter is uncontestable. Moreover, their violent rhetoric encourages more violence as they call for the assassination of their foes and the burning of cities. Their nihilistic sense of “justice” is the killing of those they hate.

In contrast, the “separatists,” as Salon calls them, are defending themselves from government overreach.

Salon concluded, “more important, we cannot reward white, right-wing extremists every time they pull a gun and threaten violence. And if there is bloodshed, there is real danger it will spread like the Hammonds’ own fire.”

If only Salon had the courage to challenge left-wing movements which really are violent! And what do we make of Leftists who want these “separatists” to be killed? Are Leftists really peaceful and supportive of the rule of law? Or are they selective in the law’s application?

Protester, Separatist, or Terrorist?

At least Salon did not call the ranchers “terrorists!” Others on the Left were not so sanguine.

As pointed out by Tammy Bruce, “No one’s at risk. There’s no one in the vicinity. They happen to have their firearms. That’s their lifestyle.” In contrast, “the 2011 takeover of Wisconsin’s capitol building by union activists resulted in millions of dollars in damages, yet no one considered referring to them as terrorists.” (Did you see the video at the time? Anarchy and wanton destruction!)

Alan Colmes, on the other hand, focused on race and ethnicity, claiming, “If you had Muslims here it would be called domestic terrorism,” apparently believing the white “separatists” should be called “terrorists.” In fact, Islamic terrorism is the terrorism threat endangering Americans today.[3]

The Left continues to be obsessed with the race of individuals,[4] rather than the nature of their actions. If whites or conservatives do it, it must be bad; if minorities or liberals do it, it must be good.

Justified Civil Disobedience

David French made some salient observations. Having analyzed the original court case, French observed, “What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.” It’s all about a land-grab by the government.

According to the ranchers, in the 1990s, “the government then began a campaign of harassment designed to force the family to sell its land, beginning with barricaded roads and arbitrarily revoked grazing permits and culminating in an absurd anti-terrorism prosecution based largely on two ‘arsons’ that began on private land but spread to the Refuge.”

French added, “There’s a clear argument that the government engaged in an overzealous, vindictive prosecution here. … To the outside observer, it appears the government has attempted to crush private homeowners and destroy their livelihood in a quest for even more land.”

Unlike Leftist protests this decade (think Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, various college campus protests), these ranchers are occupying “a vacant federal building in the middle of nowhere, and there is no reported threat to innocent bystanders.”

Yet, some on the Left want the federal government to crack down on the ranchers with “shoot to kill” orders because they are white conservatives who do not fit the liberal narrative for social justice activists.

French concluded: “Yet now they’re off to prison once again – not because they had to go or because they harmed any other person but because the federal government has pursued them like a pack of wolves. They are victims of an all-too-common injustice. Ranchers and other landowners across the country find themselves chafing under the thumb of an indifferent and even oppressive federal government. Now is the time for peaceful protest. If it gets the public to pay attention, it won’t have been in vain.”

Are these ranchers “right-wing extremists” and “terrorists” as the Left would have you believe? Or are they simply American citizens seeking justice from a tyrannical government through peaceful civil disobedience?

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Guilty of Being White” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-17.

[2]               See “Baltimore ‘Purged’” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8S.

[3]               See “Willful Blindness to Reality” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-c9.

[4]               See “Identity Politics Is the Problem” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-1l.