The Reality of Terrorism is Misunderstood by Many

Terrorism is a tactic, as well as an end in itself, as practiced by radical Islamist terrorists.

One purpose is to intimidate the many by slaying the few.  The hope is that if most everyone fears being a victim of the terrorists, they will be deterred from supporting policies opposed to the terrorists.

So Bin Laden destroys the Twin Towers in an effort to discourage America from further involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

Many Americans fail to recognize these realities.  So we hear TV commentators lamenting, for instance, what is termed as the “senseless” massacre of “innocent civilians” at the government building in San Bernardino, California.

The slaughter was “senseless” only from a naïve western perspective.  For the terrorist, the destruction was eminently sensible – it was intended to serve a known end – the triumph of radical Islam. 

And that brings us to the second terrorist purpose:  kill.  The term “innocent civilians” is an oxymoron to Islamist terrorists.  Westerners are infidels and, hence, all are guilty of being the enemy.  Their death is ordained by Allah.

 

Notoriously, the Koran contains a passage relied upon by radical Islamists as justification for the carnage they unleash, for instance, in Paris and San Bernardino.  That passage is known as the Sword Verse (9-5):

“So when the sacred months have passed away, slay the idolaters     wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.  Then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the tax [due from non-Muslims] leave their way free to them.”

Note the modifying final clause.  Extermination can be avoided if idolaters submit to Muslim authority.  However, the radical Islamist terrorists, in contradiction to the Muslim scripture they claim to follow, don’t exactly give their victims the option offered by the Koran.

Revisiting the Constitutional Convention

I recently had the occasion to refresh my knowledge of the 1787 Constitutional Convention while reading a 1971 biography of James Madison by noted historian Ralph Ketcham.

The framers certainly got a lot right as one looks back two hundred and twenty five years:  checks and balances, separation of powers and a recognition of the need for a strong chief executive.  Underpinning these policies was a generally cynical view of human nature.  Building a government on projected good intentions was, James Madison and the founders knew from history, to guarantee failure.

Yet, surprisingly, Madison – the Father of the Constitution – believed naively, at the time, in the value of language to limit the reach of the Federal Government.

The Constitutional Convention, with Madison’s concurrence, rejected a Bill of Rights as being superfluous.  After all, to quote Madison, “in a constitution of limited powers, it was not necessary [because] the Federal Government had no reason to interfere with rights since none was granted to it.”  And, indeed, Article I Section 8 does enumerate eighteen categories in which Congress shall have the power to make laws. 

In The Federalist Papers (number 84), Alexander Hamilton added another argument against the inclusion of a bill of rights.  He contended that doing so “would even be dangerous… for why declare that things shall not be done when there is no power to do so?”

In fact, several states refused to ratify the proposed constitution absent promises by proponents to incorporate a Bill of Rights via the amendment process.  Promises were made and kept.  Thus, the first ten amendments were approved in 1790.

Yet, within that decade, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed, the Alien and Sedition Act which blatantly violated the First Amendment regarding free speech.  So much for James Madison’s and Alexander Hamilton’s assurances on the limitation of governmental authority.

The intervening two centuries have repeatedly shown the need for vigilance by those favoring limited government.  People in power are driven by the human impulse to expand their authority.  Our nation’s founders are hardly unique in having underestimated that trait of human nature.

In Defense of Donald Trump

No, The Sensible Conservative is not a Trump fan.  In fact, if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, I expect to be faced with a choice next November between two very unsuitable candidates.

But fair is fair.  Mr. Trump has said many foolish and ill-considered things.  However, his comments on the temporary prohibition on Muslim immigration have brought down undeserved condemnation.

Consider these common sense propositions:  self-proclaimed Muslims commit terrorist acts.  Some Muslims wish to enter the U.S. to commit acts of terrorism.  Banning all Muslims will keep out those who desire to commit terrorist acts. 

That each of these is an undisputed fact does not mean, necessarily, that a religious test is the best or most efficient way to prevent future “San Bernardinos”.  Of course, a blanket religious test poses Constitutional problems; excludes prospective visitors not from the Middle East and would bar obvious Muslim friends such as the King of Jordan.

So Trump was being Trump.  He shoots from the hip and makes clear he hasn’t thought through the ramifications or consequences of what he proposes.  Yet, undeniably, his comments, in a general sense, resonate with large segments of the public.

Judging by the often hysterical reaction – from both right and left – you’d think that finally he has grossly stepped over the line.

Liberals called him “fascist”, compared him to Hitler and labeled him “a mendacious racist”.  On the right, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump “has rejected what America is all about”.  Even Charles Krauthammer, usually an astute and level headed conservative commentator, termed Trump’s remarks as “bigoted and indefensible”.

Nonsense.

The fact that thirty-eight percent of Republican voters agree with Donald Trump doesn’t, in itself, disprove the allegations but should generate a healthy dose of skepticism (except for those on the hard left who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and/or evil).

The clear intent of Trump’s comments (and the millions of Americans who concur) was to prevent future attacks, not to single out Muslims for their religious beliefs.

Ironically, the net result of the nearly universal political and media attacks on Trump was to increase his polling support because of the unfair assault.  And it was.

Note:  there are very legitimate concerns to be had about attitudes toward terrorism in the broader Muslim world.  For instance, a recent poll in Britain showed that twenty-five percent of Muslims “sympathized with” the attack earlier this year on the Parisian magazine which ran cartoons of Mohammed.  And one-third of Muslims students there support killing for religious purposes.  Personally, I find those numbers shocking. 

It is neither bigotry nor paranoia to point out this larger reality which should have a strong influence on our foreign guest and immigration policies.

Radical Islamist Terrorists?

According to the White House and national Democrats, “they” are to be unnamed. 

Some say “they” blow themselves up as suicide bombers, behead captives and massacre Parisians.

President Obama and his fellow group-thinkers apparently believe that by failing to use the highly descriptive phrase “radical Islamist terrorists”, they are avoiding giving offense to the majority of Muslims who are not.

Yet, I suggest that concern with avoiding offending moderate Muslims confuses the American public as to the real nature of the enemy.  The simple fact is that most Americans well know that the terrorists consider themselves to be Muslims.  They do not, however, make distinctions between good and bad followers of Islam but, rather, lump them together.

Thus, in a poll a year ago, only twenty percent of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims in general.  This is much lower than even a few years after 9/11 when one would have thought anti-Muslim sentiments would have been more pronounced.  In 2006, the highly respected Pew poll found that actually a majority of Americans had a favorable view of Muslims.

So what’s happened?  Plainly, the frequent terrorist attacks involving Muslims have influenced public opinion.  So an increase in negative views is not surprising.  However, the failure by the White House for the past seven years to accurately and precisely name the perpetrators certainly bears some of the blame.

To refuse correct labeling fuels speculation that Muslims in general – as opposed to a subgroup- are responsible. 

As a result, the lack of specificity - the refusal to call a spade a spade – causes a broader target to be an object of animosity.  The public does not believe what the Administration would wish which is that the terrorists are simply people of no particular motivation, religion or ideological preference. 

However, the American people are not the fools who occupy the Oval Office and environs.  So the belief develops that the White House (not exactly known for integrity) is trying to hide the truth.  Since it won’t identify the terrorists as radical Islamists, they must simply be Muslims.  So hostility to followers of Islam expands in part due to the addiction of President Obama to being politically correct and not giving offense.

 

He has, in effect, been hoisted on his own petard. 

So stop the harmful and counterproductive foolishness.  Call the terrorists what they are:  radical Islamists.  Good Muslims will be grateful.  

Is Worry About Syrians Immigrating to the U.S. Un-American?

Yes, according to Barack Obama who recently said so in a press conference in Manila.

The Sensible Conservative last week labeled the President an arrogant fool.  These presidential comments only solidify that opinion.

Apparently Obama believes that humanitarian impulses to help others (certainly a hallmark of America) should cause us to disregard safety concerns.  Yet the survival instinct is a dominant guide to all humankind (with the obvious primary exception being radical islamist suicide bombers). 

Is the President’s sense of compassion for fellow Americans so deficient that he truly does not comprehend the alarm and fear – particularly in the wake of Paris – caused by the possible influx of terrorist among legitimate Syrian refugees? 

Has the White House security bubble robbed him of empathy for his fellow Americans outside? 

For a variety of reasons, U.S. screening policies for would-be immigrants from the Middle East are far from reliable and surely cannot assure the U.S. public that ISIS terrorists won’t sneak through.

[It is a simple fact that Obama’s attempt at reassuring Americans that their concerns are groundless are not believed.  The many lies of President Obama in the past seven years pertaining to Obamacare, Benghazi and red lines, etc. have irreparably damaged his integrity.  Why should anyone believe anything he says?  He will lie if he thinks it will serve his interests.]

So how is it unreasonable, or “un-American,” for people not to want to take the risk… at least not now while the terrorists are seemingly on the loose everywhere?

As an aside, why does the White House offer to accept such refugees anyway?  Wouldn’t it make considerably more sense – be more humanitarian - for Sunni refugees to be resettled in close-by countries like Saudi Arabia where they share the same religious perspective?  Saudi Arabia, in particular, is financially better suited to assume the tasks involved. 

Keep in mind that our enemies in that part of the world view us as The Great Satan.  Infiltrating terrorists into our midst is undoubtedly a top priority.  The Syrian crisis brought on by Obama’s refusal to aid in the ouster of that country’s dictator is undoubtedly seen as a ripe opportunity by ISIS to serve that purpose.  We are not obligated to make their objective easier to achieve.  But an arrogant fool might pursue policies that would do so, anyway.

                                      +                 +                 +

Americans today are more upset and afraid than they’ve been since the days after 9/11.  Recent events warn us that, despite the fact that we have not been hit by a major terrorist attack in nearly fifteen years, the U.S. is not immune.  Recognizing such dangers, most Americans want to pull up the drawbridge.  This should not be a partisan issue.  Yet polling shows a significant divide.  While Republicans and independents want to stiffen immigrant screening, two-thirds of Democrats support the White House’s opposition to such a policy.  Does that mean that, still, most Democrats remain blindly loyal to Barack Obama?  Do they, in effect, trust him with their lives?  Evidently, the President is not the only fool in his party.

Is the President an Arrogant Fool?

It’s hard to find evidence that he’s not.

Consider Barack Obama’s response to the Parisian massacres.  He calls them “setbacks”.  That’s an odd way to refer to mass killings.  “Setback” is typically used to refer to a temporary thwarting of forward progress.  A more accurate appraisal would be that Paris showed a failure of prior policies to defeat ISIS.

But, of course, our president is unable to acknowledge that.  In fact, he pledges that such American policies will remain essentially unchanged.  (Those policies left undisturbed the ISIS oil “pipeline” which helps fund the terrorist group.  It took French fighter jets to attack – a year after the White House promised to defeat ISIS.)

That’s foolish, of course, but Obama has long been wedded to the belief that what he wants to believe will, by his thinking so, morph into reality. 

To be sure the world is full of fools who are such because they refuse to learn.  Yet it’s distressing and alarming in the extreme that the president of the greatest nation on earth is so afflicted.  Even the often foolish Jimmy Carter eventually wised-up while president about the nature of America’s enemies.

 

As if Obama’s ideologically shaped illusions are not appalling enough, his plain arrogance is maddening.  He chides anyone who suggests that his policies are inadequate and need strengthening.  He singles out Republican critics (although a few Democrats are among them) for sarcasm and dismisses their objections as without any merit.

Think of it.  He attacks those who have the temerity to say that his obviously failed policies are failures.

Doesn’t he remind you of the conceited high school “know it all” whose arrogance is without justification?

Barack Obama never grew out of it. 

                                +                        +                       +

Historically, I fear America will look back on its first black president with great sorrow about what might have been.  Why did he have to be such a disaster?

We are justifiably proud of so many “firsts”.  Not this one.

Forget fairness.  The racially prejudiced and bigoted in our land will long feel warranted in pointing a finger at the abysmal failures of Obama as justifying opposition to another presidential candidate of color.  

Democrats in Wonderland

Watching the Democrats debate on Saturday night brought to mind Lewis Carroll’s classic satire, Alice in Wonderland.

A few hours after the Paris terrorist attacks, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders insisted that global warming remained, in his view, the major threat to American security.  Huh?

Hillary Clinton, asked by the CBS moderator why she avoided the term radical Islamist, said our fight is not against all Muslins so we should call our enemies “radical jihadists”.  Huh?

The Iowa audience, presumably heavily Democratic, was silent when the three candidates, including ex-Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, pledged their solidarity with France in the war against terror.  But the applause was intense when Mrs. Clinton bragged that her candidacy was supported by a majority of women.

     *       *      *

If there is an alternate universe, liberal Democrats (is there any other type these days?) are in it.  Will the general electorate join them?  One hopes that Paris will keep them grounded.  Historically, when national security is the paramount concern, Republicans prevail.  Liberals tend to hope for the best; Conservatives are prepared for the worst.  Reality usually reflects the latter.  The battle against evil never ends.

Putin – Best Laid Plans Gone Astray

The ISIS bombing of a Russian civilian plane has thrown a hitch in Vladimir Putin’s plans for the Middle East.  As predicted here on October 4, the Russian tyrant’s intention in getting involved in Syria was to boot the Assad regime by first destroying the pro-western forces opposing the Syrian dictator.  Then, after that, move against ISIS.  And that is precisely what he has sought to do, until the terrorist attack upended the Russian time table.

Evidently, the Sunni terrorists weren’t willing to wait until Putin had decided to take them on so they struck first.

What happens next?  Expect the Russian reaction to be ruthless.  That’s their style.  They care not one whit about collateral damage or the extent of harm caused to non-terrorist elements in the vicinity of ISIS targets.  So called surgical strikes are tools of soft, overly sensitive western militaries.  Sledge-hammer assaults are more reliable in decimating any resistance.  Ask the Chechnyains of a would-be break-away province of Russia still living in the rubble created by Putin’s forces.  Undoubtedly there will be a change in Russian priorities.  That means a lessening of military pressure on the pro-western elements in Syria and any remaining in Iraq. 

Alas, the Obama Administration is unlikely to take advantage of this opportunity to significantly aid those forces.  The President has repeatedly shown a reluctance to forcefully assert U.S. interests.

It’s reasonable to expect that Putin – having long ago take the measure of Barack Obama – believes that a shift in priorities to ISIS now will not significantly impact his plan to bolster Syria’s Assad.  The American president will not effectively interfere.

Public Opinion – A Cautionary Note

Public opinion is repeatedly cited by commentators as “supporting” this or “opposing” that as if the consensus matters.

To be sure, in a democracy (used in the popular, not ancient Greek, sense) public opinion should not be ignored.

Do people support, for instance, Iran’s nuclear deal, Obamacare or money for Planned Parenthood?  The fact that public opinion is so often ignored is undoubtedly a key component of the broad electorate’s distrust of America’s politicians.

 

But it is appropriate that a person’s opinion should be worthy of respect only if it is informed and intelligent.  Do we credit the view of a person on climate change if he thinks it’s controlled by Martians?

Yes, a person can register his like or dislike of a political candidate and that certainly will be recognized in a campaign poll.  But his view of a public policy matter should be weighed differently.  Does he know what he’s talking about?  Is he informed about the subject matter? 

The truth is few respondents to polls are.  Most people don’t follow the news on TV or read newspapers.  They’d rather watch Entertainment Tonight or read People magazine.

A political philosopher can observe that a self-governing people have an obligation to be educated about current and national affairs.  Ok.  However, the practical solution is for people to select representatives to make appropriate decisions on their behalf (a republican form of government as opposed to a classical democracy).  And that is exactly what the Founders. In 1787, gave America.

Modern democracies have muddled the distinction, however.  We poll public opinion on matters of which most respondents know nothing (appropriate policy in the Middle East, for instance).  We report the results as if they should be a guide to American conduct.  Ridiculous.

An illustration on the level of public knowledge:  Is President Barack Obama a Muslim?

In 2010, two years into his presidency, nearly twenty per cent of the American populace thought him to be a follower of Mohammed.  Included in these numbers were ten percent of the Democrats and seven percent of the black population.

 

In 2015, Donald Trump is drawing support from about one-fourth of the GOP electorate - over half of his backers also believe that Obama is a Muslim.

How can people think that? 

Yes, his name would suggest that he is a foreigner (Barack Hussein Obama) with roots in the Middle East.  Evidently, for many Americans, that means that he’s a Muslim. 

But that view flies in the face of the President’s repeated proclamations of his Christian faith.  Remember Rev. Jeremiah Wright?  Obama was a regular attendee at the Christian pastor’s radical, often anti-American, sermons.

People who think that Barack Obama is Muslim haven’t done their homework.  They are ignorant and, truth be told, rather typical Americans.

NOTE:  I recognize that some on the right may infer that Obama is concealing his true religious allegiances.  As proof, they might cite his foreign policy as a thinly veiled effort to undercut the prestige, power and authority of western Christian civilization.  It’s not as if our President has developed a reputation for being truthful.  The Sensible Conservative, however, thinks his disastrous conduct on the foreign scene is far more likely attributable to his naivete and guilt-ridden liberal conscience than his being an “undercover Muslim”. 

The Benghazi Hearing - A Critique

The much anticipated House Benghazi Committee hearing featuring Hilary Clinton was largely a dud.

From a Republican perspective, that outcome was in part due to hearing eve statements by several GOP lawmakers suggesting that Mrs. Clinton, not the truth about the slaying of four Americans in Libya, was the committee’s target.  Thus, the expectation of a productive, informative session was reduced and favorable treatment from the liberal Clinton-leaning media less likely.  

But the nature of Congressional hearings, in general, was also responsible.  Given a setting in which each Congressman has an opportunity to speak, repeatedly, insures a lengthy - and usually dull - proceeding.  The eleven hours session with Hilary Clinton was an embarrassing example.  

It was embarrassing that the GOP’s strenuous efforts to secure the testimony of the former Secretary of State produced so little.  That result is largely due to generally unfocused and ineffectual questioning by Republican committee members.

One would have thought, knowing that the nation’s attention would be on them, that all Republican members would have honed, rehearsed and tightened their previously written questions to effectively grill Mrs. Clinton on the reasons for the Benghazi humiliation.  Alas, since the expected fruits of such preparation were rarely seen, one can only conclude that most GOP committee members didn’t do their homework.  

That’s not just embarrassing; it’s appalling.

By contrast, committee Democrats had a plainly coordinated plan.  Of course, making statements supporting the witness and posing patty-cake questions (to paraphrase the usual query: “Don’t you agree, Madame Secretary, that the Republicans are being unfair and that you are wonderful?”) is an easier task.  But, unlike their GOP brethren, they consistently pursued a sensible plan.

With painful memories of 2012 still fresh, one fears that Republican ineptitude may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2016.

Democrats are Embarrassed by Former Heroes Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

It’s truly amazing.  Democrats across the land have just discovered that party pillars and early 19^thcentury presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson owned black slaves.  As a result, they want to disassociate their party from these former heroes.

Imagine, when recent historical research conclusively established that Thomas Jefferson fathered several children with slave Sally Hemmings, Democrats evidently didn’t realize that she was also the “property” of the author of the Declaration of Independence. 

 

Well, slow learners, (and often willfully obtuse) as liberals can be, have finally absorbed the fact that America’s founders and icons were typically racists. 

 

So what is to be done?  The first task is to re-label the annual Democratic event, traditionally known as Jefferson-Jackson dinners.  According to news reports, party leaders in various states have the re-naming project underway.

How silly all of this is – and illustrative of the lack of seriousness on the Left and, alas, on the Right as well (Donald Trump’s poll numbers come to mind.).

Where will the Democratic Party’s new awareness of its roots lead? 

 

Perhaps the Jefferson Memorial should be demolished, also the name Washington removed from the namesake’s memorial (our first president was a slave owner, too!), and the Lincoln Memorial moved from its place of honor on the mall.  (Although Abraham Lincoln is properly credited with ending slavery, he, repeatedly, made it clear that he considered blacks to be members of an inferior race.)

There is real meaning to the wise sentiment that all of us have feet of clay.  And always have.  But that fact does not disqualify a person from honor or respect.  

Thomas Jefferson wrote for the ages, with words that would always inspire lovers of freedom.  Apparent hypocrisy does not weaken the strength of his language.

Andrew Jackson won the 1814 battle of New Orleans and, as president, trumpeted the cause of the American yeoman against America’s well-to-do.  Those facts formerly won him favor among Democrats.

Consider the reality that, in the 19^th century, American blacks were disfavored, slave or free, by most whites.  That was the prevailing view.  Prior to the Civil War, it was only the radical abolitionists who thought otherwise. 

I suggest that the efforts to disassociate the Democratic Party from its founders is part of the Left’s disavowal of America’s past.  Are members of the Left truly proud to be Americans?  It’s fair to wonder.  

[Barack Obama seems to embody this attitude.  Think back to his 2009 Middle East apology tour and numerous actions since then that indicate a reluctance to assert American authority in the world.  Does his sense of his country’s historical guilt prevent him from doing so?]

Can Liberty and Equality Co-Exist?

The easy answer is, of course!  After all, the Declaration of Independence’s second paragraph recognizes the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and that they have certain “inalienable” rights including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Yet, consider that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution recites that one of its purposes is to “secure the blessings of liberty”.  Equality is not mentioned.  Was the omission merely inadvertent?  Perhaps.  The Constitution and, later, the Bill of Rights was focused on the limitation of government power.  Liberty, in the classic sense, means an absence of restraint.  Equality, in the same regard, certainly meant the absence of mandated class privileges.  Formal aristocracy was barred by the Constitution:  “no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States”.

From the perspective of the Founders, co-existence of liberty and equality, as then defined, was plainly a given.  

But equality is subject to a different interpretation.  Not the Constitutional sense of opportunity but, rather, in the sense of results.  And that is certainly the prevailing definition on the left. 

 

If equality is viewed as an end, the existence of inequality suggests something’s wrong that society must fix (and by so doing, restrain liberty).  The tension between the two values becomes obvious.

  

Consider these instances of inequality.  Some racial group scores better on IQ and achievement tests than others, while better educated people usually have higher incomes.

Liberals are inclined to think these disparities are the result of factors for which the less successful groups should not be accountable.  (Denying or ignoring that genes and culture, for instance, might be relevant.)

So there must be illicit discrimination (think affirmative action) present in education.  Educational shortfalls are caused by the absence of opportunities so everyone should have the right to receive, at taxpayers expense, a college education.

Not surprising to those skeptical of such social engineering efforts, programs to provide equal results have not been successful despite the expenditures of billions of dollars (War on Poverty, etc.).

Still, realism aside, activities to lift up those down the income and educational ladder are commendable from a social perspective.

  

Yet, logically, if equality becomes theYet, logically, if equality becomes the primary social objective, the level at which it is achieved is not important.  Equality can be reached if everyone is poor and uneducated.  In political terms, if a group cannot be “raised up”, consider forcing down the group above.  

So much for liberty.

Obama and Foreign Affairs – Unintended Consequences?

The latest news for Syria is treated by most American media as yet another rebuff to the Obama Administration.  Russian bombers are attacking Syrian rebel areas controlled not by ISIS, but by non-terrorist foes of Syria’s pro-Russian tyrant.  The U.S. was given a warning not to send its aircraft over the country a mere hour before the initial Russian attack. 

This came several days after Obama and Putin had a ninety minute meeting at the U.N. in New York City, supposedly, to coordinate their joint efforts against ISIS.  Accordingly, wasn’t Putin’s conduct humiliating for the president?  One would have thought so but the White House acted as if Russia’s conduct was no big deal.  Was Barack Obama simply trying to save face or were Putin’s actions actually quite tolerable?  What is certain is that President Obama shies away from asserting U.S. authority.  “Leading from behind” is how an administration official put it when referring to U.S. policy in Libya in 2011.  Even that description is overly positive when viewing Ukraine and Iraq where American influence is negligible. 

But it’s fair to surmise that Obama welcomes these developments.  He, after all, has made clear his preferences for a lessened U.S. presence on the world scene.  He doesn’t believe that Americans should continue to play a dominant role – he doesn’t think it’s right.  After all, what entitles us to act as if we were exceptional? 

Of course, the retreat has left a vacuum which others, all foes of ours, have sought to fill.

 

Did the Administration anticipate these results?  Or are the, unfortunately, unintended consequences? 

It’s certainly possible that Obama’s level of self-imposed naivete robs him of the ability to recognize the consequences of inaction and disengagement which are so obvious to others.  But it’s at least as possible that Obama sees very clearly the results which flow from his policies.  And that is to his liking.  America deserves to be taken down a notch or two, doesn’t it?

For those who love this country (Americans and foreigners), such an attitude denies the reality that America has so often – and for so long – been a strong force for good in the world. 

For many on the left, however, the idea of positive American exceptionalism is a myth.  Alas, our president has given ample support for the view that he agrees. 

NOTE:  I have speculated – with considerable confidence – on the reasons why President Obama is so passive in the face of hostility to American interests.  However, I do not need to guess as to the objectives of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Middle East.  If one were in his shoes, it is obvious that the interests of greater Russia would be served by aligning himself with Iran and destroying all Western influence, including the elimination of Sunni foes and secular opponents of Syria’s Assad.  Without effective U.S. opposition, he will be able to obtain, with the cooperation of Shia Iran, dominance over Middle Eastern oil.  Because of joint Iranian-Russian power, and the absence of America’s, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will have no choice but to acquiesce to Putin’s aims.  Expect Russia to use its new found energy powers to force the subjugation of Europe to its interests.  America, due to its new energy resources (fracking, etc.), will escape dependency but will be economically isolated with untold consequences.

None of these worries will befall Barack Obama, of course.  Will they trouble him?  Or simply be considered as just desserts?

The Immigration Crisis in Europe

Massive immigration is no longer a concern of just America.  The migration of refugees – both political and economic – from North Africa and the Middle East has shocked Europe. 

Of course, the influx of mostly Muslim immigrants is not new and has already generated substantial resistance from many citizens of the host countries. 

But the numbers coming seem to have sharply accelerated lately.  Libya is a failed state, and not the only one in Northern Africa, the Syrian civil war, ISIS, Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to displace and drive people away.

 

And where do they want to go?  To the West, of course.  But not just any place in Europe.  Germany, the richest nation on the continent, is the prized objective.  [That fact undercuts the perception that many, if not most, refugees are fleeing war and violence.  If their motivation were primarily physical security, wouldn’t they be expected to stop when they reach safe shores, whether Italy, Greece or overland to Hungary?  But, no.  Inland to Germany and Austria is where they want to go… because economic prospects are believed to be better.]

News reports from southern and eastern Europe focus on the human plight (highlighting photos of the four year old Syrian boy washed ashore on the Turkish coast, for instance).  The tragedies are indeed heart-rending and certainly create intense desires to help.

But what happens next?  The cruel irony is that welcoming “uninvited guests” fleeing undesirable conditions encourages others to follow.  And won’t the result be the transformation of the host country in undesirable ways (as viewed by its native citizens)? 

Think of the recent problems affecting Europe as restive Muslin populations, failing to assimilate, spawn Islamic terrorism. 

Are Europe’s borders no longer to be considered barriers?  Is a foreigner’s desire to relocate there an acceptable reason to permit his entry.  Is open borders to be Europe’s new immigration policy?  Not likely!  Yet, the understandable response to the current humanitarian crisis is one in practice.  We Americans have also pursued similar policies that offer short-term compassion but promote long-term misery by encouraging would-be migrants to risk all to come.  What to do?

It’s simple to say “refuse entry”.  But the reality is that the humanitarian attitude is admirably too strong in the West to enforce that sentiment.

Of course, if authoritarian Russia or China were the targets of mass migration, the policy would undoubtedly be implemented no matter the human suffering.  But, of course, that’s an academic concern.  Who would want to go there?

The practical solution is to realize that America and Europe, in their own self-interest, must take action (both military and economic) to help control or eliminate the cause of such migration.  In other words, reduce or remove the reasons why people wish to emigrate. 

What does that mean?

 

To stem the tide of migration, use military power adequate to destroy ISIS and depose Syria’s Assad.  Employ resources to help troubled nations to establish and maintain healthy economies.  Recognize the need for the indefinite presence of Western military forces where our enemies are rooted.  (Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance, but don’t exclude northern Africa.)

These are major burdens to be assumed by Europe and the U.S.  There will be major criticisms and cries that the West is reviving colonial policies.

But unless the West chooses to commit cultural suicide, policies must be implemented to encourage people to stay home.  Otherwise the migrant stream will only increase with untold consequences for the West and its values. 

De-Fund Planned Parenthood – Shut Down the Government?

The ire on the right with Republican leadership in Washington is palpable.  Promises have been made, expectations raised and disappointment results, fueling the Tea Party in 2010 and Trump in 2015.

 

Obamacare has not been repealed nor has the federal budget been reigned in, despite GOP control of Congress.  The sense prevails that when Obama verbally digs in his heels, the GOP caves in.  The irony is noted that the President’s threats are ignored by foreign leaders as merely words (e.g., meaningless “red lines”) but heeded by his domestic foes.  Where is the will to fight, Senator Cruz and other staunch conservatives ask?

Now, the disputes on Capitol Hill among Republicans may merely be over tactics and not principle.  But, politically, perceptions are important.

Take the looming battle over continuing federal funding for pro-abortion Planned Parenthood.  The House, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to originate a budget (Article 1, Section 7), has submitted to the Senate a complete expenditure plan which does not include money for Planned Parenthood.  To pass under current rules, proponents must have sixty votes to cut off a filibuster.  And even if the budget clears that hurdle, it faces a presidential veto which could be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.  Most unlikely.

 

The practical conservative might say that’s a tactical battle not worth fighting.  It’s a loser.  Yet the same conservative might also say (I’m among them) sometimes it’s important to try even while recognizing the likely outcome to be unfavorable. 

That is an important political reality.  Effective leadership is practical but also must be able to inspire others to follow.  Many Republicans – mostly conservatives – doubt the resolve of GOP leaders.  Their past recognition of tactical realities (for instance, Obama will veto so why waste the effort) have been perceived as ideological weakness.  Leadership won’t battle for what they claim to believe in… so maybe we shouldn’t believe in them. 

Supporters who lose faith in their leaders don’t show up to vote.  (It’s a little known fact that many conservatives sat out the last election rather than vote for Romney.)

Senate Republicans need to force the fight.  Consider amending the rules affecting the debate cloture on the budget.  Let fifty-one votes suffice.  Remember how the Democrats crammed Obamacare down our throats?  Counter the Democrats’ cry that de-funding Planned Parenthood will deprive the organization of the half billion dollars it provides to non-abortion health related services by providing an identical expenditure to organizations that provide women’s health services without also providing abortions. 

If the President vetoes the budget and Congress does not override, make clear the consequences:  the government will run out of money.  That is on the Democrats, not the GOP.  The reality is that the government shut-down will be on Obama because he thinks that money for abortions is more important than America’s welfare.

Of course the liberal media will attempt to place the blame on Republicans as they have done so successfully in the past when there has been a budgetary impasse over principle.  However, we don’t have to let them get away with that canard this time.  We have ample resources ourselves to shape the public’s perception:  Fox TV, radio talk show hosts and paid media (issue advertising).  Use it.

What Happened to Dignity?

One wonders whether the absence of dignity is a key reason why politicians of whatever ideological stripe are held in generally low regard by the public.

Consider a June gathering in Iowa of  various would-be GOP nominees.  The young Republican governor of Wisconsin rode into town on a Harley- Davidson dressed appropriately for a motorcyclist.  Others who attended were attired as if ready to plow a nearby corn field.  Did any of them look presidential?  Hardly.  They simply didn’t look dignified.

Is that important?  America’s early presidents apparently thought so.  George Washington was famously known for being very formal in his attire – whether as a soldier or national leader.  Do you remember seeing photos of Abraham Lincoln – as president – dressed as the rail splitter and woodman he used to be?  How about twentieth century executives such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR or Dwight Eisenhower?  Again, they appeared in public, if not always formally attired, looking well dressed and … dignified.  Same with JFK.

Things changed with Lyndon B. Johnson.  He was “everyman” having come from a hardscrabble upbringing in rural Texas.  He was proud of his roots, flaunting his rough edges as he did during a White House press conference by pulling up his shirt to show off a recently-acquired surgical scar. 

But don’t we Americans revel in the belief that anyone can become President?  Yes, except we really don’t want just anyone to be president.

We like any other people desire to look up to our leaders.  Certainly not in the way that the subjects of a monarchy view their king or in the obsequiousness that a tyrant demands of his cowed populace.  But we do want to think that our president elected by the people deserves our respect – that he is fit to lead us.  We understandably have a hard time envisioning our neighbors and work companions (everyday people like ourselves) earning the right to guide our nation and, thus, us.

Those above us should play the role.  The President should act like a leader.  Be dignified.  That conveys self-confidence which comforts the led.

Presidents since LBJ have often failed on that score.  Think of Bill Clinton playing the saxophone on late night TV (there’s no need to reference the Monica Lewinsky matter.  Certainly that was not meant to be known to the public.).

Or think of President George W. Bush’s boast that Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive”.  Although the pledge was plainly heartfelt, it did not exactly sound dignified or presidential.  It was the phrasing one would have expected from one’s bar companion.

[To his credit, Barack Obama has almost always maintained his public dignity although the occasional photos of him wearing shorts and displaying his knobby knees on the golf course are problematic on that score.]

Informality, as such, is not inappropriate, but when it is displayed, the President and pretenders should not sacrifice dignity.  Its possession, I suggest, can be more important to success than any particular position on issues of the day.

How Does Donald Trump Do It?

Pundits of all political stripes have a hard time (The Sensible Conservative, included) grasping how Donald Trump holds on to supporters after his many apparent gaffes and seemingly damaging declarations.  For those old enough to remember, he’s like the vintage Timex commercial that extolls the watch that “takes a licking and keeps on ticking”. 

Trump calls fellow GOP candidates “stupid” (one of his milder epithets), attacks Mexicans in general and dismisses venerated Viet Nam veteran John McCain as “not a war hero”. 

And his poll numbers go up.

Four years ago, respected Texas Governor Rick Perry couldn’t remember the third federal agency he wished to dismantle.  His campaign for the GOP nomination quickly slipped under the waves.  Herman Cain was the subject of rumors that he took advantage of female employees of his pizza company and his popularity evaporated.  Michelle Bachman and other Republican presidential candidates shared the same ending in 2012. 

So why is Donald Trump different? 

Maybe it’s this simple:  Unlike those candidates mentioned above, Trump’s  supporters think they know him already.  They’ve watched his TV shows and read his books.  He is a celebrity.  They like him. 

It’s natural for people to react defensively when someone they like is cast in an unfavorable light by others or by himself.  The fact of liking someone provides that person with a shield.  They either don’t believe, or ignore, the attacks and apparent missteps. 

Consider that a favored celebrity is, by that status, afforded a well of reserve good will that is available to offset perceived problems.

But caution is appropriate.  That well is not bottomless.  Ask another celebrity – once much more highly regarded than Trump is today:  Bill Cosby.

Also, for some others, to know Donald Trump is to not like him (according to polls, twice the number backing him).  They, like his fans, will not readily change their minds.  That would suggest a stout ceiling on his prospects of adding to his support.

Murder in Black Communities – the Statistics

News in the past few months has been dominated by stories from Ferguson and Baltimore highlighting the killing of young blacks by police.  

As a result of such attention, the impression has been created – aided and abetted by many on the Left – that such deaths are a major cause of black mortality.

Statistics tell a different story. 

According to FBI records for 2012, for instance, there were twenty six hundred black homicide victims that year.  Twenty-four hundred (over ninety percent) were killed by fellow blacks.  Approximately one hundred were shot by police officers (of whatever color).

Between 1999 and 2011 – twelve years – twice as many whites as blacks were killed by law enforcement personnel.

That last statistic, of course, can be deceiving since the white population is five times larger.  Critics of the police can cite that fact as proof of racism by cops.

  

Consider additional numbers, however.  Fifty-two percent of murders in the United States between the years of 1980 and 2008, were committed by blacks.  The black population was ten percent (it’s now about thirteen percent).

Crime is committed more broadly by blacks, in general, than whites.  As an example, arrest rates for robbery are eight hundred percent higher for blacks than whites, and incarceration levels are six times greater.

Think about that.  If blacks are more likely to commit crimes, from a statistical perspective, they are more likely to come into contact with police trying to stop illegal conduct… and more likely to be shot and killed. 

Yet, the far greater risk to blacks – the statistics make clear – comes from those of the same race. 

Alas, dealing with that much more serious threat lacks the political appeal on the left of stigmatizing law enforcement personnel with the racist label.