NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Once again, it was all about Ted Cruz By Richard Baehr

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

I have never been a big fan of Ted Cruz but I would have voted for him without any hesitation, were he the nominee. I liked many of his policy positions, and considered him very bright and knowledgeable. I think he might have made a very good president had he accomplished nothing more than stopping the relentless growth of the super state and changing the direction of our foreign policy to once again backing allies and opposing enemies.

But there is the downside as well. Cruz’ antics during the budget shutdown effort in 2013, managed to drive the Obamacare enrollment fiasco off the front pages and the evening news, so that his completely hopeless shutdown effort could attract attention to him for his supposed commitment to principle and willingness to fight the good fight. Support for the GOP dropped by 1/4 in the month during which Cruz played this game. Cruz knew he could not win in his effort, but he won in the way that mattered to him — making him the darling of the hard right and talk radio for his courage and allegiance to conservative principles, and setting himself up to run in 2016.

The reality is that the part of the conservative movement that was in love with Cruz is a shrinking percentage of the American electorate and will drive the party well beyond where most independents and non-conservatives are comfortable. In other words, purity is the enemy of the good and it has been winning. There is no large missing conservative base that will win national elections for the GOP. Trump attracted support from working class Democrats, many of whom have stopped voting regularly. It is why he has a long shot chance to make states like Pennsylvania competitive.

So what happened Wednesday night? Cruz again made himself the story at the expense of his party.

If Cruz was not endorsing Trump because of ugly Trump comments about his family (what he told the Texas delegation Thursday) that is perfectly understandable, and he should have avoided the convention entirely, especially since Trump never apologized. Thursday, Cruz said he decided he could violate his pledge to endorse the eventual nominee based on Trump’s’ comments about his family. Nice to know that after the fact, if it is the real reason.

If, on the other hand, Cruz were refusing to endorse Trump because Trump is not conservative enough, well he is a giant phony. Cruz danced with Trump for 6 months while Trump was caustically tearing apart Jeb and Carly and others, assuming he would scoop up the remains once Trump collapsed. Trump insulting other candidates and their families was OK for Cruz — just politics as usual, until the worm turned on him.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

HIS SAY: EXCERPT FROM GOVERNOR PENCE’S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

https://www.c-span.org/video/?412401-101/governor-mike-pence-acceptance-speech
HISTORY TEACHES US THAT WEAKNESS AROUSES EVIL. HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA ‘S FOREIGN POLICY OF LEADING FROM BEHIND, FEIGNING RESETS WITH RUSSIA, AND THE RISE OF ISIS, OUR TESTAMENTS TO THIS TRUTH OF HISTORY. WE CANNOT HAVE FOUR MORE YEARS APOLOGIZING TO OUR ENEMIES AND ABANDONING OUR FRIENDS. [APPLAUSE] AMERICA NEEDS TO BE STRONG FOR THE WORLD TO BE SAFE, AND ON THE WORLD STAGE, DONALD TRUMP WILL LEAD FROM STRENGTH. DONALD TRUMP WILL REBUILD OUR MILITARY AND STAND WITH OUR ALLIES. DONALD TRUMP WILL CONFRONT RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM AT ITS SOURCE AND DESTROY THE ENEMIES OF OUR FREEDOM. AND, IF THE WORLD KNOWS NOTHING ELSE, IT WILL KNOW THIS. AMERICA STANDS WITH ISRAEL. [APPLAUSE]
BRAVO! RSK

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

We’re Losing Our Republic Because We Lack the Will to Restrain Democracy The Founders had good reason to guard against the tyranny of the majority. By David French…See note please

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

These are the last and vicious gasps of the #Never Trump losers….Shame on David French who is usually so thoughtful and brilliant…. This is also an elite slight on patriotic Americans….rsk

Our nation’s Founders understood a singular truth about human nature. No single person — or group of persons — could be fully trusted with power. As John Adams noted, “My opinion is, and always has been, that absolute power intoxicates alike despots, monarchs, aristocrats, and democrats.” Indeed, distrust of democracy helped animate the Founders’ push for a republic. James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, stated his concerns bluntly:

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

In other words, there is nothing magical or inherently virtuous about the “will of the people.” The people are just as capable of error, just as capable of becoming tyrants, as any tin-pot dictator.

Thus, the Founders gave us a republic, if — as Ben Franklin is alleged to have admonished — we can keep it. Every branch of government checks the other. The people check the government. The Constitution is supreme over all, protecting our core civil liberties from the will of the majority and from the abuse of the rulers. At its heart, the entire system depends on the understanding that no person is above the law.

But no government — no matter how wisely constructed — can long survive in the absence of at least some degree of human courage and conviction. People who abuse power can be stopped only by other people who have the authority and responsibility to defend our liberties and our way of life. And, yes, sometimes that means standing in front of democracy to preserve the principles of the republic.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Where Are the Academic Boycotts of Turkey? The Western academy doesn’t hesitate to boycott Israel — but outright suppression of academic freedom in Turkey draws silence. By Theodore Kupfer

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

In an attempt to consolidate power after last week’s coup attempt, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has launched a massive purge of Turkish institutions. As Noah Daponte-Smith notes, among those fired or detained are 1,577 university deans and professors, along with tens of thousands of teachers. In conjunction, the government has “issued a blanket travel ban on all academics.” The purges are a signal that Erdogan is finished dealing with the irksome byproducts of a free academy.

Academics have been critical of Erdogan throughout his autocratic reign, with some sympathetic to Pennsylvania-based opposition leader Fethullah Gulen. Now, however, not only has the Turkish state built a rejection of academic freedom into its regime, but Turkish universities must also cheerlead for that regime. The Turkish academy is going to be nothing more than a megaphone for Erdogan as the suppression of dissenting scholars reverberates throughout its institutions.

Or, put another way, the actual situation in Turkey is therefore a lot like the imaginary situation in Israel, as imagined by academic associations that support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS). These institutions claim that, first, Israel’s state activities violate international law, and second, that Israel’s academy as a collective is complicit in the perpetuation of these state activities. The president of the American Studies Association said about their Israel boycott that it “is the best way to protect and expand academic freedom and access to education,” adding that “as an association of scholars and educators, the ASA has an ethical responsibility to act.” Turkey’s actions since the aborted coup have been grotesque and illegal. The government has destroyed the freedom of individual scholars and lower-level educators. So should we expect the ASA — and the handful of academic associations like it that have also declared boycotts of Israel — to exercise its “ethical responsibility to act” in the case of Turkey?

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

More Duct Tape Won’t Save Obamacare’s Collapsing Exchanges Sally Pipes

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

President Obama and his closest advisers need to invest in a new crystal ball.

When Obamacare’s health-insurance exchanges opened in 2014, the administration predicted that the marketplaces would quickly thrive — and offer consumers a wide range of affordable coverage options.

But today, three enrollment periods later, the exchanges are on the brink of collapse. Major insurers are quitting, premiums are skyrocketing, enrollment is below expectations, and the administration is taking increasingly desperate measures to paper over the problems. By this time next year, the exchanges could be out of business.

This month, the Obama administration reported that exchange enrollment had plunged by 1.6 million in the first three months of 2016, to 11.1 million. It could dip below 10 million by December if exchange shoppers quit paying their premiums — or are unable to prove citizenship — over the rest of this year at the same rate they’ve done so in the past.

Those enrollment figures are less than half of what the Congressional Budget Office had been forecasting.

And consumers aren’t the only ones bailing on Obamacare’s exchanges. Insurers are doing the same. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota recently announced that it would pull out of the state’s individual market after losing half a billion dollars. Health Care Services Corporation pulled its Blue Cross affiliate out of New Mexico’s exchange last year after the state denied it a 50 percent premium hike.

The nation’s largest insurer, UnitedHealth, has pulled out of exchanges in all but a handful of states. And 16 of the 23 non-profit, state-chartered co-ops created by Obamacare to sell affordable insurance plans have gone bankrupt.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

The Dream of Muslim Outreach Has Become a Nightmare Affirming Muslim grievances has only increased the Arab world’s sense that Obama is weak. By Victor Davis Hanson —

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.

Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.

Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster,” and “workplace violence.”

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”

Careerist toadies in government parroted the party-line message and even tried to outdo their politically correct boss.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Terrorism in the Therapeutic Age When politicians will give solemn and empty speeches laced with even emptier threats. Bruce Thornton

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

We know what is going to follow the latest terrorist murder in Nice. Shrines to the dead will instantly spring up. Conclaves of citizens will gather at sorrowful demonstrations filled with ecumenical clichés. The media will profile selected victims, wringing every ounce of pathos out of their tragedy. Twitter will be inundated with sentimental bromides and ephemeral hashtags, and politicians will give solemn and empty speeches laced with even emptier threats.

Welcome to terror in a therapeutic age.

What we will not read are passionate demands from most citizens of Western governments that mind-concentrating force be unleashed on those responsible for the latest slaughter of the innocents. Nor will we hear stirring speeches from our political leaders that forcefully make the moral case for war against the murderers and their enablers.

Obsessing over feelings and emotions is what many moderns reflexively substitute for meaningful action. Righteous anger and burning revenge of the sort that fired up Americans after the Pearl Harbor attacks are too “mean” and “hurtful,” and require a serious commitment and exorbitant risk. Displaying emotion is cheap and gratifying and offends no one. Indeed, such displays demonstrate the purveyors’ superior “we are the world” sensibilities and sensitivity. It is “conspicuous compassion,” as Alan Bloom called it, as much a status symbol as Veblen’s conspicuous consumption. It’s how people show themselves to be civilized and advanced, too sophisticated for retrograde emotions like avenging anger. That’s so Old Testament.

In the therapeutic world, conflict is to be resolved by peace, love, and understanding. Or as our Attorney General said after the Orlando jihadist massacre, “Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love.” Thus the institutional instruments for resolving our differences with the jihadists are diplomatic engagement, foreign aid, economic development, negotiated agreements, and careful nurturing of our enemies’ self-esteem. We must flatter them, stroke their egos, attend to their grievances, censor any unpleasant facts about their religion. Pretend, as Obama does, that Islam, the “religion of peace” and has absolutely nothing to do with Muslim terrorism, or what he prefers to call “violent extremists.” Assert, like Hillary, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The problem is, we live in a world of people with radically different ideas about the goods they should pursue, and who don’t give a damn about “peace, love, understanding,” or the opinions of Western infidels about their religion. Whatever their potential is for possessing and recognizing a “common humanity,” in practice this possibility remains mostly unexpressed in their traditional religious tenets. Rather, Muslim jihadists––and hundreds of millions of ordinary Muslims–– limit their compassion, sympathy, and respect for humanity to fellow Muslims, and deny them to the infidel or heretic. That’s why zakat, the personal obligation for Muslims to make charitable contributions, for the most part restricts that charity to other Muslims.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Hezbollah’s Massive Missile Build-Up Could Cause Thousands Of Israeli Deaths Why Israel may be forced to strike first. Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

One day perhaps not far off, there will be another war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iranian terrorist proxy in Lebanon. One might assume that any future clash will be similar to past ones –– Israel struck by disruptive and occasionally lethal rocket attacks, and intense, but limited, hostilities over days or weeks, leading to a new, uneasy ceasefire. But this is unlikely. The next Lebanon war might well be like none that preceded it.

The reason is that Hezbollah, in the decade since the last Lebanon war, has amassed an astonishing arsenal of 130,000 rockets, missiles and mortars, largely provided by Iran, aimed at virtually every square inch of Israel.

As Willy Stern in the Weekly Standard reminds us, “This is a bigger arsenal than all NATO countries (except the United States) combined.” And it is the hands of a movement whose veteran leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has spoken of Israel as a “cancerous tumor” to be eliminated and of Jews to be globally murdered, saying, “if they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

Worse, these are not the katyushas rockets or mortars of old, which terrify and disrupt, but kill and maim only in small numbers, mainly in Israel’s border areas.

Hizbollah’s arsenal includes over 700 long-range Fateh-10 and Scud-D missiles, sophisticated munitions which carry heavy payloads and can hit any part of Israel, killing hundreds or even thousands. Add to that new Russian anti-tank and anti-ship missiles, and future Israeli operations against Hezbollah will be scarcely a cakewalk.

With its enormous number of missiles, Hezbollah could rain down huge barrages that overwhelm Israeli anti-missile defenses, with some 10% of their missiles penetrating the Iron Dome defenses. Thus, Israeli casualties could be in the thousands and senior Israeli military figures have said as much. Israel Defense Forces Deputy Chief of Staff Major-General Yair Golan has estimated that central Israel, untouched in previous clashes, will be hit hard. “Dozens” of missiles, in his view, could hit Tel Aviv.

Where terrorists have no scruple about using whatever weapons they can obtain against an enemy nations’ civilians en masse, it is clear that it is only a matter of time until that country acts. The truth is that Israel will be obliged to do so before long, whether by its own pre-emptive initiative or in response to a devastating attack.

Israel has been constrained by a desire to avoid military clashes that harm its international reputation, so it has been reluctant to act in the past. Just recall the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel waited rather than shoulder the blame for initiating fighting, causing Israeli casualties to be in the thousands.

Israel has normally awaited a serious escalation –– a border attack with numerous casualties, for example –– before responding.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

No GOP Sus-Pence on Security and Allies Vice presidential nominee Mike Pence says “We stand with Israel.”Lloyd Billingsley

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

Outside the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland Wednesday, the 60s reenactors were venting in the usual style. Donald Trump was in the building but again the dominant themes were American security and the Democratic nominee.

“This threat is real and it is here,” said Florida governor Rick Scott. “The next president must destroy this evil.” The current administration had projected weakness on the international stage and radical Islamic terrorism was ascendant. “We need a president who will wipe it off the face of the earth,” and in Scott’s view that was not Hillary Clinton.

Radio host Laura Ingraham lamented that “our allies don’t respect us anymore” and that “The Democrats’ answer is to nominate the woman who helped orchestrate America’s decline.”

For Florida Attorney General Pam Biondi, Hillary Clinton “believes our enemies deserve our respect and empathy.” By contrast, “Donald Trump believes terrorists deserve to die,” and the conventioneers responded with cheers. “Send ISIS a message that we are really coming after them,” Biondi said. “Donald Trump will.”

Ralph Alvarado, a state senator from Kentucky, whose father is from Costa Rica and mother from Argentina, charged that President Obama has “made America more divided than ever.” The administration had also failed on Benghazi, the “Fast and Furious” scandal, and the Iran nuclear deal, “and with Hillary Clinton the nightmare will be worse.”

African American pastor Darrell Scott told the convention that “the Democratic Party has failed us” and that liberals were afraid to use the word “patriot.” Abroad the United States was “no longer respected.” Scott called for a “Greater America” and defense of the Constitution.

“Climate change is not our biggest problem,” said Harold Hamm of Continental Resources, a shale oil company. “It’s Islamic terrorism.” In Hamm’s view, Donald Trump would be the first president to bring about energy independence. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, “would eliminate it.”

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker said Trump was willing to name the threat for what it is, “radical Islamic terrorism,” and he called for “absolute victory for our troops.” Hillary Clinton, Walker said, is “the ultimate liberal insider. If any more on the inside, she would be in prison.”

Recalling FBI director James Comey’s recent testimony, Scott said “I wouldn’t give Hillary Clinton the password to my iPhone, let alone to classified information.” And for those security reasons, “Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president.”

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Cruz’s Broken Pledge And a weird sop to the racial-grievance industry. Matthew Vadum

Posted By on July 21st, 2016

CLEVELAND — Ted Cruz did the Republican Party no favors last night when he pointedly refused to endorse GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, breaking a promise he and other rival candidates made at the outset of the primary campaign last year.

Cruz also made what appeared to be some kind of overture to race baiters by mentioning aspiring cop-killer Alton Sterling who was recently shot dead by Baton Rouge police during an altercation. It seemed very odd, but maybe in retrospect it shouldn’t. After all, Cruz went along with leftists and a few other GOPers by baselessly smearing Trump as a racist after he urged the deportation of millions of illegal aliens.

Of course Cruz is not the only contender for the Republican nod to go back on his word but he is the most high-profile and he won the second-highest number of convention delegates after Trump. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who also had intense run-ins with Trump throughout the primary process, swallowed his pride and appeared in a video last night endorsing Trump.

It is true that during the primary campaign Trump launched some nasty, low-blow attacks on Cruz (and others). He retweeted an unflattering photo of Cruz’s wife, Heidi, juxtaposed with a photo of Trump’s beauty queen wife, Melania, a move that was interpreted as a dig at Mrs. Cruz’s appearance. He embraced a crazy conspiracy theory that put Cruz’s father at the heart of the John F. Kennedy assassination. He saddled Cruz with the undeserved nickname “Lyin’ Ted.”

But the convention is supposed to be where these matters are settled, the aggrieved individuals and factions reconciled, and the party united to take on the other party in November. As the saying goes, politics ain’t beanbag — and America’s future is too important to jeopardize over one’s own hurt feelings.

It was a huge missed opportunity for Cruz to bring Republicans together and it is dangerous because many hardcore Cruz backers will now feel justified in withholding their support in November for the GOP’s nominee.

Cruz could not swallow his pride. The Texas senator was loudly booed off the stage at the Republican National Convention after he humiliated the GOP’s new standard bearer by urging Americans to “vote your conscience.” The boos and howling by delegates were powerful enough that they could be felt way up in the rafters of the Quicken Loans Arena.

Cruz and his wife Heidi had to be escorted out of the arena after the crowd grew angry.