Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Creating the Narrative
What is going on here is painfully obvious. The New York Times and the Associated Press are collaborating in an attempt to smear and delegitimize Donald Trump by tying him to a purported "movement" of white supremacists called the alt-right. No doubt many other liberal news organizations will join in, in order to advance the interests of their party.
The "alt-right" is mostly a figment of the liberal media’s imagination. I have been active in the conservative movement for decades, and know hundreds, perhaps thousands, of conservatives of all stripes. Yet I had never heard of the "alt-right" until the Democrats started promoting it during the current election season. The supposed leader of the white supremacist movement is a young man named Richard Spencer. I learned this a few minutes ago by Googling. I had never heard of Mr. Spencer, and virtually no one had heard of him until the Democrats decided to portray him as the leader of a fictitious "movement" that they then tied to Republicans.
Disavowing nobodies like this, or nobodies like David Duke, who ran for office many years ago and now survives by being a "former KKK leader" whom the press can quote in order to discredit Republicans–forgetting, apparently, that the Ku Klux Klan was the militant arm of the Democratic Party in the South–is a fool's game. The more Trump does it, the more the press will report that he is disavowing such otherwise-unknown elements "again," in a futile effort to "distance himself" from people of whom, for the most part, he probably has never heard.
How should Trump respond to such demands for disavowal? Aggressively, as he did during the campaign, but too often has failed to do since being elected. How about Hillary Clinton, he should ask. Has she disavowed the support of the American Communist Party, which urged its followers to vote for her?
Mr. Hinderaker concludes,
So, Hillary, how about it? Communism has killed thousands of times as many people as the KKK. Is Hillary comfortable with enjoying the support of the Communist Party? Why doesn’t anyone ask her that question? Well, sure. The answer is obvious.
And has Hillary Clinton–or any other Democrat, for that matter–disavowed the rioters who have brought destruction to cities across America in the days since their candidate lost? I have not seen a single such disavowal from any prominent Democrat, let alone Mrs. Clinton. Has Hillary disavowed the support of the goons who beat a Trump supporter nearly to death in Chicago? Nope. Has she disavowed the support of the Democrats who are threatening to murder electors who cast ballots for Donald Trump, the winner of the presidential election? Nope.
Trump should tell the press to go talk to Hillary about her disreputable supporters. Once she has renounced them, they can come back to Donald with their questions.
Monday, October 31, 2016
It’s hard for me to imagine disliking someone to the point of being happy she sustained a serious injury. But then, I never had to work for Hillary Clinton.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Patterns of Offending
Andrew C. McCarthy:
First, she explains the elephant in the room that no one (including Donald Trump last night) wants to confront: Mrs. Clinton's "systemic bias" libel ignores that the statistical overrepresentation of blacks in the prison population (compared to their percentage of the overall population) is caused by patterns of offending.
Not only does crime reporting by victims bear this out. It is common sense. Outside of academia, the legal profession is second to none in its leftward bent and racialist worldview; and its conservative members believe in equal protection under the law. Participants in the system, particularly the judiciary, would not tolerate a situation in which black defendants were, as Clinton alleges, being given more severe sentences than white defendants for the same criminal conduct. Federal sentences (and sentences in most states) are computed under race-neutral guidelines that factor in both offense conduct and criminal history. The more crimes one commits, the heavier the sentence for any one crime. This is a recidivism thing, not a race thing.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
How about a Civics Test?
Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a "religious test" in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.Please read the entire article.
Thursday, July 07, 2016
Quote of the Day
I don't think that our investigation established she was actually particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment.
Monday, July 04, 2016
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
-President Calvin Coolidge
(Posted previously in 2011.)
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Unanswered Questions about Immigration
Why are we doing this? When did we vote for it? Who decided that it was a good idea to import, for example, 102,000 Pakistanis? A few of them are doctors and so on, but what about the rest? Why do we need them? We know the downside, what is the upside?
There are 37,000 Somalis on the list. Hardly any of these are physicians, scientists, etc., and most have been shipped to my home state. Why? More than 50% of Somali-American men in Minnesota are not in the labor force. On what theory does this benefit the United States? I have never seen such a rationale articulated.