Leftist Loonyism This Week

The left has been on a rampage this week...

First, we have the Turkey terror attacks.  Despite the monsters using guns for this, I have yet to see those who find this such a scourge here in the US call for President Erdogan to use his considerable powers as supreme ruler of Turkey to stem the tide of gun violence that is gripping Turkey.

Next, thanks to Iliana Johnson and the watchdog group, Cause to Action, we found out that former IRS executive Lois Lerner likely broke the law when she shared over 1 million pages of tax return information with the Department of Justice.  But, this is the Obama administration, so instead of mainstream media coverage of the political weaponization of the IRS against conservative political enemies of this administration, we'll get...crickets.

Loretta Lynch met privately will Bill Clinton, ahead of the release of the Benghazi report.  Maybe it was a chance encounter, but, the nation's chief law enforcement officer, who may be called on to offer up an indictment of Hillary Clinton, should not be having private discussions with her husband in the run up to either of these events.  This is outrageous and a serious ethical issue.  But, for the most transparent administration in History, what else did you expect.

The Supreme Court gave us a glimpse of life under a 5-4 liberal majority.  Religious freedom will be destroyed, abortion on demand will be the law of the land.  Democrats don't care about women's health.  As Mary Eberstadt in NR put it:

Once upon a time, liberals portrayed the procedure of abortion as a thing regrettable but sometimes necessary. This was the cottony, “safe, legal, and rare” piety of yesteryear. That old rhetorical dressing has been ripped off for good. Today, The Daily Show is taking a tut-tutting in the media for having tweeted to its 4.25 million followers a comment that some find tasteless: “Celebrate the #SCOTUS ruling! Go knock someone up in Texas!” The indignation is faux. Under the logic of secularist progressivism today, the only thing regrettable about abortion is that there isn’t more of it.

These people don't care if Kermit Gosnell type abortion mills dot the country.  They only care that abortions are performed.  If they have to be by sadists like Gosnell using the most unsafe procedures, so be it.  The "right" of a woman to kill that clump of tissue shall not have any undue burden placed on it.  I would not be surprised to see an abortionist who offers coat hangar only abortions have these people defend him, because, you know, abortion.  It used to be that Bill Clinton wanted to see abortion be safe, legal, and rare, but really we know that the true believers only care about the legal part of that triad.

Trust me, the future holds a time when these people not only celebrate abortion as the unfettered legal right of women, but will require every woman to get pregnant and have one.  For the shared experience, of course.

Finally, we have the House Select Committee's final report on Benghazi.  The administration and their willing dupes in the media want you to think that there is nothing new here, and that there is no proof that Hillary Clinton did anything illegal.  Well, no one really was looking to find out if she did anything in illegal with respect to Benghazi.  We were looking to find out how 4 Americans, including an Ambassador had to lose their lives defending themselves in a Libyan hellhole.  Indeed, a gay ambassador.  Funny how the gays seem to be doing very poorly at the hands of Democrats in the age of Obama (except for that marriage thing).

They'll tell you, "nothing new here," "time to move on," and, Hillary had nothing to do with it.  Well, you can read the report linked herein.  While 4 men died, the Department of State dithered on whether we should send in a rescue mission in uniform or not.

Read the report.

The End of Islam

Until the West comes to grip with Islam and makes a decision about how we're going to face down this scourge, events like this morning in Orlando are only going to continue, and get worse.

This is NOT about gun control.  You are incredibly naive if you think today's events, or Islamists will stop murdering Westerners if they don't have the ability to buy an AR over the counter. One need only look at Paris to know this is a lie. You are also fooling yourself if you believe that there is not a damn good reason to practice some Islamophobia. These people want to kill us all, but trust me, they'll start with the gays, the apostates, the unbelievers, and then they'll move on to those of us who refuse to pay the jizya.

This is about a political ideology that is tied to a "religion" that over a billion people practice that has a dangerously murderous element. I don't say radical, because today's events are all too normal within Islam, they are all too accepted by its practitioners, and they are not going to end without the West ending it.

The time is running short for the people who actually want to practice a religion of "peace" to prove it by expunging these elements themselves.

I call on the leaders of the West to do what is necessary and and put an end to this. If that means we have to occupy the middle east for the next 2000 years, then so be it. If Islam can not join us in the 21st century, then Islam can become a relic of it.

Mexican Judges Love Trump

I was, at first, appalled by Trump's "attack" on the judge in the Trump University case, Gonzalo Curiel.  As you must have heard by now, Trump accused the judge of a bias against him because he was "Mexican." You can see video and a transcript of Trump's remarks here.

Over the last week, I have decided to stop just taking for granted the media's depiction of Trump on this, and to try to look at it subjectively.  I think too many of the "right" people got their knickers all in a  twist over something that is unworthy of such gnashing and wailing of teeth.

I expect this kind of nonsense from the Left.  They want to win, they have no guiding principle other than the constant expansion of government power (with them at the helm) and winning.  Therefore, consistency in logic and equality of treatment is not something I expect from The Left.

I expect a little more from my friends on the right.  In some ways, they are being more consistent in their approach.  In other ways, they are employing the tactics of The Left against Trump, and in the quest to defeat Progressivism, this will have adverse affects for the country.  It's also why, although I am drawn to their arguments like a moth to flame, I am at times annoyed with the stridency of the #neverTrump crowd.

But, I digress.

Over on Ricochet (membership required) I read Richard Epstein's take down of Trump and I (and you) can enjoy Professor Epstein's discussion of Trump on his "The Libertarian" podcast.  I recommend you subscribe.  I have just decided I don't agree and I find the reasoning of many,
people like Epstein, Mona Charen, Jay Nordlinger, Professor Tom Nichols, Rick Wilson flawed.

For many who are firmly #neverTrump, much of it is based, as Epstein discusses ad nauseum, on the Trump "temperament."  Many of these people claim to have some inner window to Trump's soul.  Mona Charen accuses him of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder ("McFly, have you seen Barack Obama?? ").  Nichols, a "National Security Conservative" doesn't trust Trump with the nuclear button, unlike Marco Rubio, who doesn't trust him with the button, but figures, what the hell.  Wilson is as anti-Trump as they come. Need I go on?  Most of these people dismiss Trump because of things like his temperament.  They use words like "unqualified, unfit" to describe his readiness for the Office of the President.

That's an opinion, and none of these people are qualified to make medical diagnoses.

It was while listening to the Need to Know Podcast (hosted by Charen and Nordlinger) that I realized why many of these people move to "temperament" when they have reservations about Trump.  In an innocuous aside where Mona and Jay discussed home invasions and the usefulness of guns to deterring them, Charen remarked to Jay that they have things that will turn your lights off and on so you don't just have to leave a light on.  It struck me as so out of touch.  They've only had light timers for about 50 years at least, I'd guess.  Today, Mona, did you know you can do this from the Internet?

I imagine in the circles these people run around in, they don't find a lot of guys like Trump.  They read about them in the newspaper, they have friends who are friends with them, and they imagine them in their wildest dreams.  But they've rarely come in contact with them, and when they do, they do consider them boorish and vulgar, and rude and nasty, and nouveau and they're just a tad bit disgusted by them.

In their circles they just don't talk like this.  And thus, when Trump links the word "Mexican" with "biased" in that word jumble way that Trump speaks, they instantly, like their analogs on the Left, connect the dots and it becomes "Trump is a racist" and cue the right's outrage industry, because just as when the Left doesn't want to argue a point, they resort to racism, these guys so detest Trump that they've chosen the same tactics.

And that, my friends, is what is going on here.

Trump is incredibly flawed.  He could use this case to demonstrate that people are biased, and that The Left celebrates their bias.  Instead of a cheap personal attack (and it was a cheap personal attack, it just wasn't racist), Trump could have said,

"In a time where we have Leftist Supreme Court justices claiming being a 'wise Latina' is a qualification for a judge, is it any wonder that I can't get a fair shake from a Latino judge?  After all, the Left has been telling Hispanics for years that the only way forward for them is to be treated as special snowflakes who can't do it on their own, they need the benevolent hand of their Leftists benefactors.  Well, I KNOW they can do it on their own.  I see Hispanics who have immigrated here legally working hard every day and they can make it without Hillary Clinton swooping down with some special government goodies stolen from someone else, they can live the American dream and own businesses and employ others and share that dream.  But they can't do it while the Left is holding them down and making them losers, who only win when the Left decides they can share in the ill gotten spoils from the crooks who stole it.  They can't.  Believe me, when Trump is president, they will."

Or something like that.

Guy needs to think first.  He could really turn these lemons into lemonade.

Trump and Protection

I promise some anti-Hillary posts this season. Honest.

But first, some more fodder for the #nevertrump crowd and a quick education in the post World War era.

Donald J Trump has gotten a lot of applause from his followers and it's a popular stump line that NATO is obsolete and our allies should be paying us for their "protection."

Once you get past the irony of a New York tough guy asking Koreans and Japanese to pony up protection money, doesn't Trump have a good point?

I'll grant him this much - our allies do benefit greatly from US protection in the post WW2 world.  In Europe, because of the presence of the US military and the Article 5 provisions in the NATO Charter, all NATO members are bound together, but the primary provider of military power is clearly the United States.  It's basically been that way since the war ended, with Britain providing some additional credible capability.

And have the Europeans benefitted?  Greatly.  It has enabled them to build those vaunted social democracies that Bernie Sanders and American liberals are so enamored of.  If these guys had to pay for their own military, they could not afford the generous welfare states they have built.  No doubt on that one.

The same is also true in the Far East with Japan and Korea, so when we consider this protection racket, they're in on it.

But, isn't there something in this game for us?

We could have pulled out of these arrangements at any time in the last 60 to 70 years.  None of these countries are holding a gun to our head, demanding that we play this role.  We played this role willingly, in fact, we found being the leader of the free world, being the protector of the order after WW2 to be in our national interest.  It was in our interest, immediately after WW2 to ensure neither Germany nor Japan returned to militarism, and particularly that Germany's desire to conquer Europe was quenched, as that quickly turned to the Soviets and containment of them.  Surely for the 50 years that the Cold War raged, it was in our national interest to remain engaged in the protection of Europe to keep the Soviets at bay.  And it was.

Of course, Trump argues that those times have passed, and since 1992, our troop levels have massively declined across Europe and in Japan and South Korea.  We have largely pulled back as the Russian threat diminished, and at times, NATO has pushed for more European involvement in Europe's defense needs, and at times, they have responded.

The US's portion of NATO's military spending is relatively small, compared to our overall defense spending, at less than $500 million dollars.

The US spends less than $7B (this is US defense money) on defense of Japan and South Korea, so we're looking at a relatively small percentage of the overall defense budget going toward direct costs for these countries, and this money doesn't even mean it's totally for their defense.  These countries provide forward operating bases so that we can more quickly respond to global powers, like China and Russia, so these aren't just costs in defense of the host countries.

This is a complicated subject, and Trump tries to boil it down to simplicity, because it's a good sound bite.  We get something that enhances our overall security from these arrangements.  We're not there to engage in a protection racket, we're in these countries because it enhances our national security, because it gives us control over the command and control structure, and because it's the right thing to do for the global hegemon.

Just imagine a world where we are not in control in these places, where we had to work with multiple armies, multiple large navies, multiple air forces of sizes suitable for their defense.  It would be a difficult world indeed for our military, so this arrangement has practical value as well.

Things are never as simple as Donald Trump wishes they were, and the questions are hard and the answers complex.  I wish he'd engage in a little more intellectual curiosity rather than always taking the politically easy way out.

On David French and 3rd Party Anti-Trump Runs

Bill Kristol is an ardent neverTrumper, and this week he revealed that Iraq War veteran, Constitutional lawyer, author and National Review contributor David French would be his pick to run in a 3rd party bid against Trump.

I'll let French pal and fellow NR staffer Jim Geraghty explain the challenges ahead, and why good mean like French are not in our national political pysche at this time.

I am torn by Trump, just as the Republican party is.

But, I am united with them in that I think a third party run against Trump is an incredibly bad idea.  Sure, I would love to see a guy like David French inject some real conservatism into the Fall debate.  I think it would be great to have a true conservative on the stage with Trump, Clinton, and Johnson in the Fall, but it's not going to happen.

Conservatives, given that conservatism's home resides in the GOP, had their chance to make the case for it in a much better crucible for us, and we lost.  We had Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, and Ted Cruz, and we lost.  The GOP primary voters turned out to be much less interested in conservatism than they are in nationalism and populism, and Trump won the nomination.

Now is the time for Trump and his coalition to sink or swim.  On its own.  I do not want to be part of an organized group who these creeps (and that describes MANY of them) can point to and say cost their savior the election.  It will be one thing for those who can't abide the man to sit on their hands in November and skip the Presidential part of the ballot (or choose someone else who isn't Hillary), and it's quite another to actively support another candidate.

I will not actively support another candidate, and conservatives should do the same.  Either get behind Trump and throw some level of support to him, or be an observer and point out the flaws in both candidates.

There are plenty, and that's what I intend to do, from this point forward.

My note to Trump and his Trumpkins - STOP giving me reasons to point out your flaws and start running a campaign that seeks to actually unify the GOP and go after Hillary Clinton.

No more attacks on sitting Republican Hispanic Female governors, no more stupid attacks on judges who rule against you in your Fraud (oops, Trump) University case, and no more moronic tweets, please.

Because I refuse to let that crap go by unnoticed.