Flapping in the Breeze

For John, BLUF:  Do you ever feel your elected officials will sell you out if they find what seems like a larger patch of voters?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Other Kind of Marxism

Here is the sub-headline:

If you don’t like a politician’s principles, there’s a good chance he has others.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Columnist Andy Kessler, 28 April 2024 at 11:51 am ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

Today’s politicians are steeped in Marxism.  Not Karl, but Groucho, who is supposed to have said:  “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them . . . well, I have others.”

On Jan. 22, 2021, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said of Donald Trump’s second impeachment:  “Make no mistake, a trial will be held in the United States Senate and there will be a vote whether to convict the president.”  Fast forward to a week ago, when articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.  Mr. Schumer said:  “Impeachment Article 1 does not allege conduct that rises to the level of high crime or misdemeanor . . . and is therefore unconstitutional.”  No trial.  No vote.

This tossing of principles can be found everywhere.  In 2020 President Trump tried to ban social-media app TikTok over national-security concerns.  Now Mr. Trump is against a ban, writing last month on Truth Social:  “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business.  I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better.”

In August 2020, Joe Biden told ABC’s David Muir, referring to Covid:  “I would shut it down.  I would listen to the scientists.”  By October 2020, Mr. Biden insisted, “I’m not going to shut down the country, I’m going to shut down the virus.”  Lockdowns continued.

Science!  Sadly, some scientists have prancing principles.  Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in March 2020, “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”  In October 2020, when CNBC’s Shepard Smith asked if we need a national mask mandate, Dr. Fauci quickly answered, “Yes, we do.”  The Washington Post and BuzzFeed, via a Freedom of Information Act request, found this February 2020 Dr. Fauci email:  “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material.”  In January 2023, the respected Cochrane Review agreed:  “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference.”

And on it goes.

I don't mind politicians "growing" in their understanding and ethics.  I dislike their way of being a windsocket and going with the breeze.

Hat tip to a Friend in Texas.

Regards  —  Cliff

Rough and Tumble

For John, BLUF:  We are a lucky nation. lucky in the blessings of God and lucky in the common folk who help right the ship of state when it starts to list.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

America Is Often a Nation Divided

Here is the sub-headline:

U.S. politics today is ugly and broken, true enough.  But the good news is that it was worse in the past, and it will get better again.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Political Analyst Karl Rove, 25 August 2023, 3:03 pm ET.

Here is the lede plus two:

America is deeply divided. Our politics is broken, marked by anger, contempt and distrust.  We must acknowledge that reality but not lose historical perspective.  It’s bad now, but it’s been worse before—and not only during the Civil War.

Let’s look backward and start with the mid-1960s to early ’70s.  The nation was bitterly divided over civil rights, the “sexual revolution” and an increasingly unpopular war in Southeast Asia.

The just and peaceful civil-rights protests of the 1950s and early ’60s were often met with state-sanctioned violence.  Then Harlem exploded in 1964, followed by a riot in Philadelphia.  Watts went up in flames in 1965; Chicago, Cleveland and San Francisco the next year.  A total of 163 cities—including Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, Newark, N.J., New York and Portland, Ore.—suffered widespread violence in the “Long Hot Summer” of 1967.  On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. Riots broke out in more than 130 American cities, with 47 killed in the ensuing violence. Two months later Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles.

I remember the Watts riots.  My then Girlfriend and I were driving back from The Desert, enroute to her home on the other side of Watts.  We stopped at my Father's place in Long Beach and he cautioned caution.  We spent the night in Long Beach, her in my bed and me on the couch.  In the morning things were calmer and we proceeded on to her place.

The Rove article goes back through our history, even to the Election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.  The election was ugly and the aftermath was ugly, including a dual and, eventually, a former Vice President arrested on the charge of treason.♠

Colonel George Everette (Bud) Day was shot down over North Viet-nam on this day in 1967.  Upon his return he said:  "I have faith in my country, and am secure in the knowledge that my country is a good nation.”  That is the hope with which I go foeward.  Shelfish people, even in high places, do selfish thing.  But, eventually Americans do the rught and proper thing.

Hat tip to the Patrick Devine.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  He beat the charge, twice.

Violence Against Politicians

For John, BLUF:  Is AntiFa a global organization, like Communism, or is it a bunch of individual organiations, each doing its own thing?  In other worse, does the AntiFa in Portland pretty much agree wiht the AntiFa in Germany?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Far-Left Antifa Extremists Threaten to Kill 53 Populist German Politicians

Here is the sub-headline:

Antifa far-left extremists have called for the murder of 53 members of the populist Alternative for Germany (AfD), publishing their home addresses on a well-known far-left web platform.

from Breitbaart, by Reporter Chris Tomlinson, 2 October 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) confirmed the existence of the posts, which were made on Indymedia, the far-left web platform which has been used in the past to post credit for far-left attacks and other calls for violence against the AfD.

The BKA confirmed to German magazine Focus that several posts made on September 13th had called for violence against the populist party, with one saying: “Let’s kill the AfD pigs with explosives.”

A Google search cache seen by Breitbart London confirms the existence of the posts on Indymedia, but the articles have been either deleted or moved, as a message states “access denied” when attempting to view the page.

I know the Democrats lost the Congressional Baseball Game this year, a charity event, but this seems like a bit of an extreme reaction.

Mr James Hodgkinson, of Belleville, Illinois, the shooter on 14 June 2017, was a one off.♠  That said, it is the worst act of terrorism against Congress since the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party shot up Congress on 1 March 1954, wounding five CongressCritters.

Isn't it time for Progressives to come out and condemn this kind of AntiFa talk?  Killing Politicians is not necessarily a value free action.  Others will likely be hurt.  Are we so obsessed with the "right" that we see it as a free fire zone?  I hope not. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  It is interesting to me that the vaunted Wikipedia does not hve an entry for Mr Hodgkinson, although they do mention him in their entry for the Congressional Baseball shooting itself.  Why?  I wonder.  Is it because Mr Hodgkinson was a "Bernie Bro"?  Is it because it flows counter to the theme that the problem is terrorism on the right?

Following the Science

For John, BLUF:  I am not convinced that those who are urging us to follow the science know what the science is, or even what science is.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This month’s heresy is next month’s orthodoxy

From Samizdata, by Blogger Natalie Solent, 11 August 2021.

Here is the post, or most of it:

“YouTube suspends Rand Paul for a week over a video disputing the effectiveness of masks”, reports the New York Times.

I have no strong opinion on the question, but Senator Rand Paul is also Doctor Rand Paul, so his medical opinion holds some weight. This post on Rumble takes you to the video that got him banned: “It Is Time For Unfiltered News”

As Glenn Greenwald points out,

JUST LAST WEEK: Biden’s former COVID adviser, the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, told @camanpour [the CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour] exactly the same thing.

YouTube and Facebook* play a merry game. On April 16 2020, Guy Rosen, Facebook’s “VP Integrity”, posted “An Update on Our Work to Keep People Informed and Limit Misinformation About COVID-19”. That post is as good as a soap opera; the writers are always adding new and dramatic plot twists.

On February 8, 2021 at 10:00AM PT, they announced that claims that “COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured” would be removed.

On May 26, 2021 at 3:30PM PT, they said, “In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps.”

In like spirit, Dr Paul is doing no more than returning to the medical orthodoxy before last. From the Independent, Thursday 12 March 2020:

Coronavirus: Face masks could increase risk of infection, medical chief warns

Members of the public could be putting themselves more at risk from contracting coronavirus by wearing face masks, one of England’s most senior doctors has warned.

Jenny Harries, deputy chief medical officer, said the masks could “actually trap the virus” and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in.

Science is about better explaining what we think we know to be true.

Once, a long time ago, about 1986, I heard someone say on CNN that 90% of what we knew to be scientifically true in 1900 we now know to be wrong.

I know we all think we are a lot smarter than we used to be, but a dash of humility is never out of order. I expect Government officials, elected or appointed, are not open to saying that they aren't certain, but it would help sell things to me.  And even "circling back" once in a while and saying "here is where we got it wrong" might do wonders to build my confidence in the job they are doing.

Regards  —  Cliff

Root Causes of Mass Murders

For John, BLUF:  Mass murders need a better explanation if they are going to be halted.  Or maybe they are just the cost of our current culture, a price we are willing to pay for the satisfaction of other ego issues.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mass Shootings:  A Materialist Horror

From The American Conservative, by Blogger Rod Dreher, 13 August 2019.

We are told that Mass Murders are not the result of mental illness.  The knifing spree in Garden Grove, California, the same weekend as the El Paso and Dayton shootings, suggests it isn't guns, or just guns that cause mass murders.♠  We need a better explanation.

From Mr Dreher's Blog we have this start:

Tara Isabella Burton is telling us something very, very important about these mass killers:

Domestic right-wing terrorists, like the man accused of the shooting last weekend in El Paso, are not so different from their radical Islamist counterparts across the globe — and not only in their tactics for spreading terror or in their internet-based recruiting. Indeed, it is impossible to understand America’s resurgence of reactionary extremism without understanding it as a fundamentally religious phenomenon.

Unlike Islamist jihadists, the online communities of incels, white supremacists and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists make no metaphysical truth claims, do not focus on God and offer no promise of an afterlife or reward. But they fulfill the functions that sociologists generally attribute to a religion: They give their members a meaningful account of why the world is the way it is. They provide them with a sense of purpose and the possibility of sainthood. They offer a sense of community. And they establish clear roles and rituals that allow adherents to feel and act as part of a whole. These aren’t just subcultures; they are churches. And until we recognize the religious hunger alongside the destructive hatred, we have little chance of stopping these terrorists.

She goes on to describe how these ideological communities serve as pseudo-religions for their members. It’s hard to overstate the importance of what she’s seeing here. As I’ve been saying, Hannah Arendt says these factors are exactly the kind of thing that, when it went viral (so to speak), created 20th century totalitarianism.

Here is the last paragraph:

Tara Isabella Burton suggests that the apocalyptic violence we keep seeing in these mass shootings are social and psychological consequences of metaphysical materialism.  She’s right, I believe.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  While our laws do need to be strengthened with regard to background checks and "red flag" actions, adding more laws will never be enough.  Politicians who promise "gun control" as the answer are liars, or so misinformed as to never be qualified for your vote.

Grifters From All Directions

For John, BLUF:  I am not as pessimistic as is Mr Dreher, including about President Trump, but he has his finger on a long term problem in the Western political scene.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What Happens When Trump Falls?

Here is the sub-headline:

From The American Conservative, by Mr Rod Dreher, 2 December 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

Ross Douthat has a good column today, about how Trump’s grift has been paradoxically cleansing.  He argues that Trump’s claim that he would go to Washington and “drain the swamp,” while only ever plausible to those eager to be a mark, is now impossible for anyone to take seriously:

But the more common reason a certain kind of Trump supporter accepted his anti-corruption pitch was less conspiratorial and more cynical.  He’s bad but they’re all like that, the whole elite class is rotten, so why not send a grifter to catch a bunch of grifters?

That hasn’t worked out; it turns out that when you send a businessman-grifter into the world of political grifters he hires some of the worst of them to help him with the fleecing.

True. We are very close to the point, if not past it, where any good that Trump’s election might have done in terms of breaking up a corrupt aristocracy, in spite of Trump’s own corruption, is now exceeded by that corruption.  David Brooks articulated on NPR on Friday something that has been on my mind lately, but I hadn’t put into words.

And the final question I have is, what are our standards? Behind the legal standards, what’s our political standards.  President Nixon could be really removed from office for obstruction from justice — of justice.  Are we at a state in this country where we no longer really mind?  And that actually could be the case. I’m just reminded The New York Times had a story of tax fraud in the Trump family, and that story went away in about 35 seconds.  And so we’ve become — may have become inured to corruption.

Yes, I think we are.  Do you really believe that Michael Cohen, not Donald Trump, is lying about the Trump organization’s business dealings with Russia? Seriously?  I said here after the shocking final Kavanaugh hearing that seeing the behavior of the Democrats and the liberal industrial complex in their attempt to destroy Kavanaugh by any means necessary shocked me into the realization that as much as I can’t stand Trump, I would probably have to vote for him only out of self-protection.

Note the last sentence of the above quote.

The Author, Mr Dreher, does a discussion of the situation in France, where the mobs in the streets of Paris have forced the Government to back down from a proposed gasoline tax increase.  Then he ends up as follows:

What I’m getting at is asking what comes politically when most Americans lose faith in the ability of our elites to make things better?  I fear that on the Right, we’re going to have to deal with the myth that Trump would have succeeded had the swamp not stabbed him in the back.

This is a tricky question, because it asks if the People are so upset that they are prepared to take to the streets, as the "Yellow Vests" did in Paris the last three weekends.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Impact of "Fake" News

For John, BLUF:  This idea that the version of news presented isn't the real truth goes back to Yellow Journalism, and a hundred years before that.  I understand the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, hired a newspaper published as a State employee, to help fund the gentleman's journal, The National Gazette.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘Fake News’: Wide Reach but Little Impact, Study Suggests

From The Old Gray Lady, by Mr Benedict Carey, 2 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Fake news evolved from seedy internet sideshow to serious electoral threat so quickly that behavioral scientists had little time to answer basic questions about it, like who was reading what, how much real news they also consumed and whether targeted fact-checking efforts ever hit a target.

Sure, surveys abound, asking people what they remember reading.  But these are only as precise as the respondents’ shifty recollections and subject to a malleable definition of “fake.”  The term “fake news” itself has evolved into an all-purpose smear, used by politicians and the president to deride journalism they don’t like.

But now the first hard data on fake-news consumption has arrived.  Researchers last week posted an analysis of the browsing histories of thousands of adults during the run-up to the 2016 election — a real-time picture of who viewed which fake stories, and what real news those people were seeing at the same time.

This seems to suggest the "Russian interference" may be less of a problem than we thought.

The other thing that jumped out was how the author differentiated between politicians and the President.  I wonder if that is a blind spot for old line media?  Is this President, President Trump, not a sublime politicians?

Regards  —  Cliff
-2 Sat 3.0

Illinois as Venezuela

For John, BLUF:  It isn't so much Illinois, but who is right behind them in line.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What to do with a broken Illinois:  Dissolve the Land of Lincoln

This is from The Chicago Tribune and Contact Reporter John Kass.  It is reaction to reports of the impending bankruptcy of the State of Illinois (sort of like Puerto Rico and Venezuela—althoughPuerto Rico is a US Problem).

Reporter Kass' solution:

Let the other states have Illinois, John Kass proposes.

Here is the lede plus three:

Illinois is like Venezuela now, a fiscally broken state that has lost its will to live, although for the moment, we still have enough toilet paper.

But before we run out of the essentials, let's finally admit that after decade upon decade of taxing and spending and borrowing, Illinois has finally run out of other people's money.

Those "other people" include taxpayers who've abandoned the state. And now Illinois faces doomsday.

So as the politicians meet in Springfield this week for another round of posturing and gesturing and blaming, we need a plan.

Here is the plan

My Daughter assures me that the State Retirement fund is sound.  I have small nagging doubts.

At any rate, as Mr Kass (and Maggie Thatcher) said, you soon run out of other People's money.

Hat tip to the Srudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tom Hayden (RIP)

For John, BLUF:  A Leftist, with all that conveys.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Truth About the Late Tom Hayden—Whitewashed by the MSM

Here his how Mr Ron Radosh, writing for Pajamas Media starts his 26 October appreciation of the late Tom Hayden:

The death of Tom Hayden last Sunday at the age of 76 produced obituaries and tributes in scores of newspapers throughout the United States, as well as notices of his passing on major network news programs.  In the 1960s, Hayden helped define and popularize Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which garnered support on many college campuses.  It was Hayden who made the phrase “participatory democracy” popular, by which he and the original author of the phrase, philosopher Arnold Kaufman, meant that individuals should have decision-making power in all decisions that affect their lives.  A new politics, Hayden believed, would lead to “common participation” and put an end to apathy and the meaningless, corrupt politics of the mainstream political parties.

That didn't work out very well.

In the end, Mr Hayden was a Progressive, more interested in international Left Wing regimes than in the participation of Americans in their own democracy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Arrogance of Power

For John, BLUF:  Mayor Rahm Emanuel (Dead Fish) is an arrogant person who does damage to democracy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the Instapundit Blog Site, Law Professor Glenn Reynolds says:

DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY:  Emanuel responds to broadside from Jesse Jackson Sr.  “Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday vehemently denied that he sat on the Laquan McDonald shooting video until he was safely re-elected after the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. accused the mayor of a cover-up in his most blistering attack on the mayor to date.”

The shooting of Laquan McDonald?  A Policeman arrived on the scene and pumped 16 bullets into young Mr Laquan McDonald, who was armed with a three inch blade knife and walking away.  This was almost two years ago.

Let us be frank.  Laquan McDonald was a punk.  On the other hand, he was still a human being and what happened to him was flat out wrong.♠

Covering up how it happen, by the City of Chicago, only made it worse.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Do we no longer believe in the power of redemption?

Insight, At Last

For John, BLUF:  A long read, but important.  Take it in sections.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Atlantic and the pen of Analyst Jonathan Rauch, we finally have some insight to this amazing presidential campaign.

How American Politics Went Insane

Here is the sub-headline:

It happened gradually—and until the U.S. figures out how to treat the problem, it will only get worse.

I think the best line of a very long article, and the first indication of insight on the part of the party elites, the media or academia, is this one:

Trump, however, didn’t cause the chaos.  The chaos caused Trump.  What we are seeing is not a temporary spasm of chaos but a chaos syndrome.

Think about that.  The Donald is the natural outcome to the alienation felt by the voters, as is Senator Bernie Sanders.  You can put it down to under-educated Caucasian males, but they are a block of voters and they did.  And took others with them.  And last week started picking up some LGBTQ supporters.

Here are two insightful paragraphs.

Our intricate, informal system of political intermediation, which took many decades to build, did not commit suicide or die of old age; we reformed it to death.  For decades, well-meaning political reformers have attacked intermediaries as corrupt, undemocratic, unnecessary, or (usually) all of the above.  Americans have been busy demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties, which is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system.  Eventually, you will get sick.

The disorder has other causes, too: developments such as ideological polarization, the rise of social media, and the radicalization of the Republican base.  But chaos syndrome compounds the effects of those developments, by impeding the task of organizing to counteract them.  Insurgencies in presidential races and on Capitol Hill are nothing new, and they are not necessarily bad, as long as the governing process can accommodate them.  Years before the Senate had to cope with Ted Cruz, it had to cope with Jesse Helms.  The difference is that Cruz shut down the government, which Helms could not have done had he even imagined trying.

Note the comment about "we reformed it to death."  The author suggests, for example, that the campaign finance reforms made things worse, rather than better.  So, you might not like Citizens United, but campaign Finance reform has just made things worse.

You will have to read the whole thing to find out the problems Author Rauch has identified.  I will note that the author probably puts too much emphasis on the Tea Parties, and not enough on the 1968 Democratic Party Convention and the subsequent Senator George McGovern reforms (McGovern-Fraser Commission).

The author does provide some suggested solutions to the chaos that he sees consuming our political process:

I don’t have a quick solution to the current mess, but I do think it would be easy, in principle, to start moving in a better direction.  Although returning parties and middlemen to anything like their 19th-century glory is not conceivable—or, in today’s America, even desirable—strengthening parties and middlemen is very doable.  Restrictions inhibiting the parties from coordinating with their own candidates serve to encourage political wildcatting, so repeal them.  Limits on donations to the parties drive money to unaccountable outsiders, so lift them.  Restoring the earmarks that help grease legislative success requires nothing more than a change in congressional rules.  And there are all kinds of ways the parties could move insiders back to the center of the nomination process.  If they wanted to, they could require would-be candidates to get petition signatures from elected officials and county party chairs, or they could send unbound delegates to their conventions (as several state parties are doing this year), or they could enhance the role of middlemen in a host of other ways.

Building party machines and political networks is what career politicians naturally do, if they’re allowed to do it. So let them.  I’m not talking about rigging the system to exclude challengers or prevent insurgencies.  I’m talking about de-rigging the system to reduce its pervasive bias against middlemen.  Then they can do their job, thereby making the world safe for challengers and insurgencies.

Unfortunately, although the mechanics of de-rigging are fairly straightforward, the politics of it are hard.  The public is wedded to an anti-establishment narrative.  The political-reform community is invested in direct participation, transparency, fund-raising limits on parties, and other elements of the anti-intermediation worldview.  The establishment, to the extent that there still is such a thing, is demoralized and shattered, barely able to muster an argument for its own existence.

And, the author has some hopeful notes:

But there are optimistic signs, too.  Liberals in the campaign-finance-reform community are showing new interest in strengthening the parties. Academics and commentators are getting a good look at politics without effective organizers and cohesive organizations, and they are terrified.  On Capitol Hill, conservatives and liberals alike are on board with restoring regular order in Congress.  In Washington, insiders have had some success at reorganizing and pushing back.  No Senate Republican was defeated by a primary challenger in 2014, in part because then–Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a machine politician par excellence, created a network of business allies to counterpunch against the Tea Party.

The biggest obstacle, I think, is the general public’s reflexive, unreasoning hostility to politicians and the process of politics. Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country’s last universally acceptable form of bigotry.  Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.

The author, early on in the article, points out we could have a repeat of this election year in 2020, if there are not changes.  At the this point, the election of a Hillary Clinton will be a continuation of things as they are, with some possibility of reforms around the margins until the citizenry has educated itself on what is going on.  The election of a Donald Trump will create more of an opportunity for reform, but with less predictability as to how the next four years will go.  The term from bridge players is "A cheap trick now will cost you later."

Hat tip to the Memorandum.

Regards  —  Cliff

Regards — Cliff

Professional vs Politician

For John, BLUF:  George, good move, but no kill.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This morning, on City Life, Host George Anthes asked City Manager Kevin Murphy if he was endorsing anyone for the 18th Middlesex Representative Race for the General Court, his old seat.

The City Manager said, no, he is a professional, not a politician.

This is a great transition, and an important one.  He is no longer a politician, although he must understand politics.  Rather, he is a professional city manager.

George tried again by asking if he isn't endorsing for the General Election or for the Primary.

City Manager Murphy came back with the line "I am a professional, not a politician.

Good on him.

Regards  —  Cliff

Clashing Cultures vs Assimilation

For John, BLUF:  I am for immigration, even of Muslims, but I want the straight facts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Town Hall and Mr John Hawkins, yesterday, we have "Dear American Muslims, Can We Have An Honest Talk?".

Here is the start of the piece

On 9/11, one of my roommates was a Turkish pilot.  Not only was he sent home that day, he didn’t work again for weeks.  In one moment he was just a guy with a religion that most Americans had no strong opinions about.  In the next, there were people who thought he was potentially dangerous because of what he believed.

I’m sure a lot of Muslims have gone through that and since then, every other day it seems like there’s a story in the news about a Muslim blowing himself up, murdering innocent people or taking sex slaves.  Ironically, most of the victims of these Muslims are other Muslims.  So, if you’re a peaceful Muslim who loves his country, I’m sure it’s easy to feel under siege.

Personally, I think most American Muslims are good people; they’re anti-terrorist; they’re anti-Sharia law and they want to raise their families in peace and pursue the American Dream just like everybody else.  I condemn in the strongest of terms, not just hate crimes and harassment, but the smearing of all Muslims with the same brush.  Every Muslim who seems like a nice guy isn’t engaging in Taqiyya as he secretly plans to kill the infidels.  Moreover, telling Muslims who mean us no harm that if they understood their own religion, they’d be murdering the rest of us is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

Spot on.  Americans are Americans and Muslims who are Americans are just as good, or as bad, as the rest of us.  They prove them selves time and time again.  Here is a piece from "The Ideas Section" of The Boston Globe this last Sunday.  Mr John Rodriquez, from the Truman National Security Project give us "My Muslim brothers-in-arms".  Good article and spot on.

But, Mr Hawkins, after reviewing the statistics world-wide, ends on an important point:

If you want to dramatically cut the risk of having another 9/11 in the next few years and want to reduce the number of American women who will be raped, reducing the number of Muslims we allow to live in our country long-term would be the most effective thing we could do.

It all depends on how willing we are to deal with the world as it is as opposed to what we wish it would be.  It’s time to stop pretending that the problem is people pointing out that a significant minority of Muslims worldwide are radicalized and to start realistically dealing with the fact that a significant minority of Muslims worldwide are radicalized.  With everything we know, we shouldn’t need another 9/11 to convince us to start taking reasonable precautions with our immigration policy.

And, I would assert, the Federal and State Governments are not helping us make choices as voters and make accommodations as neighbors because they are not giving us the full story on immigration.  No fireside chats, no insights, no statistics.  Put another way, one of the things lacking in dealing with this is leadership.  At least with President George W Bush I thought I was getting the straight skinny.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Brazile on Bush re New Orleans

For John, BLUF:  Just a nice story.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Hill Reporter Benedict Carey gives us "Donna Brazile praises Bush’s Katrina response on flight with Obama".  There are the parts The InstaPundit quoted:

Donna Brazile, a prominent Democratic political operative, praised President George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina on Thursday, just hours before President Obama’s speech in New Orleans marking the storm’s 10th anniversary.

Brazile, a Louisiana native, has applauded Bush’s Katrina response before. But she made her latest comments on board Air Force One while flying to the Big Easy with Obama, who has previously criticized’s his predecessor’s handling of the storm recovery.

“Under President Bush’s leadership, we got it right,” she told reporters.

Brazile said Bush’s initial response to the storm was “slow,” but chalked that up to chaos plaguing state and local governments along the Gulf Coast.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms Donna Brazile is a Democrat, but I have thought of her as a straight shooter, and still do.

It is nice when someone from one side says something nice about someone from the other side.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trust is Needed, But Not Always Wise

For John, BLUF:  Republican Candidate has staffer who lies to the press just before the election.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

So, this guy's staffer put out the word, just before the election, that the Candidate was guilty of sexual harrassment.  The Candidate lost.  Turns out that the staffer lied. "Former Staffer For California Republican Admits to Lies That Ruined Campaign".

I hope this was not a coordinated effort.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A String of Affairs

For John, BLUF:  What is the line?  "Let him who is without sin…?"  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Mr Orin Kerr, writing in the "Volokh Conspiracy" column in The Washington Post, "If I understand the history correctly…".

If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy.

I guess the question is, should we be surprised?

I do admit to be a bit surprised and very disappointed.  That is the problem with being hopeful.  There is always someone out there to disappoint you.

Oh, and to be clear, we are talking about a string of Republicans here.  Folks who sometimes claim to have a higher standard.  And, assuming there are actually some folks down in DC, from either party, who have not cheated on their spouse, they will get tainted in this process.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trust of Politicians

For John, BLUF:  This is about the two New York City minority policemen executed by a disturbed man from Baltimore.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

There is talk about how New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio should leave office, given how the Police of New York City feel about him.  For instance we have this from The Hill:

Pat Lynch, the president of the largest police union in New York City, [who] said the current mayor, Bill de Blasio (D), had blood on his hands.

Regarding the issue of Mr de Blasio resigning, I received this text message this morning:

DeBlasio will not resign.  It requires something he doesn't have:  honor.

Time will tell in this case.

Regards  —  Cliff

How Washington Self-Organizes

For John, BLUF:  Parties create themselves.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

City Life Producer John McDonough likes to say that when he votes he is not voting Republican or Democrat, but voting for Americans.  He wants to send Americans to Washington, to look after our business.  He thinks parties get in the way.

We are, in fact, all Americans, but we do have different political views.  So, transport yourself to Congress, where you are a shiny new US Representative from Massachusetts.  You were elected to represent the views of the votes, those who voted with you and those who voted against you.  You are, after all, an American, and one of 435 like Americans in the US House of Representatives.

There are a couple of key issues about which you feel strongly.  You wish to legislate in support of your ideas and ideals.  Below is a sample or sharply contrasted views, views often based upon underlying philosophical views:

One View	Different View
Keynes	Chicago School
Man-made Global Warming	Normal Climatic Cycles
Restrict Gun Ownership	Second Amendment
Single Payer Health Care	Free Market Health Care
Pro-Choice	Pro-Life
Graduated Income Tax	Flat Tax Rate

Do you just wait for the vote to be called, or do you team up with others who think like you?  Is it possible that there are people who think like you on a number of the issues listed and also on some other issues?  Is there some danger that you and your like thinking brethren will sort of drift together to accomplish your aims?  Maybe in a year or so you and your friends might group together to make sure everyone gets reelected?

At what point are you a member of a dreaded "party"?

Regards  —  Cliff

One View on Government and The People

For John, BLUF:  This is not a view I subscribe to.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

In forwarding an article on Reporter Sara Firth resigning from the London office of the TV News organization Russia Today, one person cited this quote to help us understand Russia today.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war...but, after all it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Herman Goering at Nuremberg trial in 1946

The article (not the quote) is from The [Manchester] Guardian and the headline is "Russia Today reporter resigns in protest at MH17 coverage".  Ms Firth resigned over the "Kremlin-backed news channel’s ‘disrespect for facts’ in reports about Malaysia Airlines plane disaster".

The point of submitting this is to help each of us think about our political responsibilities, in voting, and in petitioning our elected leaders.

Regards  —  Cliff

Classified EMail to YouTube?

For John, BLUF:  More transparency would be good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From ABC News we have this report on the Benghazi imbroglio.  The headline is "White House Contacted YouTube During Benghazi Attack, Darrell Issa Says".

The interesting part is that, allegedly, our Department of State has, apparently, classified an EMail it sent to YouTube during the attack.  Of all the silliness regarding classification of information (a very serious business♠) the idea that an EMail sent to a non-governmental agency is then classified to withhold it from the public (or Congress) is one of the silliest.

Trying to have it both ways.

UPDATE:  Listening to el Rushbo today while going from place to place, I learned that I missed an important point.  The White House called YouTube and then sent a [now?] classified EMail to State.  "It is a secret, but we called You Tube and asked them to take down that vile video."  I wonder if they mentioned the First Amendment?

Here is the thing.  Either you are a red blooded American who believes in Free Speech, no matter that it is offensive to this or that party, or you are some European wanna be, but without a belief in real free speech.  Just ask Mark Stein why he now lives in the US.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  From The [Manchester] Guardian we have today's headline, "Pentagon report: scope of intelligence compromised by Snowden 'staggering'".  I suspect that we are talking about lives at risk that makes the Valerie Plame problem look small.  Mr Snowden did serious damage to our national security.