Was the Attack in Syria in the U.S. National Interest?

In a narrow sense, no.  The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime poses no threat to America.

Yet, more broadly, the U.S. response was essential.

First, President Trump’s reference to “red lines” put America’s credibility on the line again.  President Obama’s empty threat of 2013 had degraded it with untold deleterious effects on our national interests.  (It undoubtedly disheartened our friends and encouraged our foes.  American indeed appeared as a toothless tiger.)  A repeat was an anathema. 

Second, America’s moral leadership is worth upholding.   We backed a century-old proscription against chemical weapons that earned respect for our role in the world of enforcing standards.  To the extent respect  translates into support for the U.S., that’s good for America.

Starbucks – PC Run Amuck

Why is it a media event that a manager of a Philadelphia Starbucks called the police because two people refused to leave the coffee shop?  Apparently, the two individuals were occupying a table and had not placed an order.

Maybe the manager’s decision was harsh and unwelcoming.  But that wasn’t the reason for the upheaval.

The two individuals were black.  So, of course, the PC crowd shouted, they were the subject of the police call only because they were black.  There  couldn’t be any other explanation for the conduct of the manager, could there, that had nothing to do with race?

And, thus, Starbucks announces, having concluded without any disclosed evidence that race was the reason for the ouster of the two men, that all employees are required to receive instruction on racial prejudice. 

Assume for the moment that the manager had been racially discriminatory – The sin of one is to be shared by the thousands of other Starbucks’ employees?  On what basis is that extrapolation made?

Ridiculous, foolish and demeaning for anyone associated with that so-called “progressive” business known as Starbucks. (I’ll admit that I’ve always found their coffee shops to be pretentious and overpriced.  Who knew the “20+ something” baristas were racists, too?)

James Comey – A Self-Righteous Fellow

James Comey is a prime example of Washington hubris in action.  A long-time Department of Justice lawyer turned FBI chief took it upon himself (not his call) last summer to clear Hillary Clinton of criminal charges from her “gross negligence” in handling “top secret” information.  Then, on the eve of the Presidential election, disregarding FBI rules, Comey reopened the Clinton investigation.

Republicans howled in July.  Democrats did so that November.  And each side had good cause.

But no matter.  Comey knew best.  He could only do right, so why are both sides still so upset with him?  After all, the title of his book, A Higher Loyalty, says it all.

The Constitutional Founders knew what they were doing when they strove to insure “Rule of Law”.  But the Comeys of the world will always be with us.  So vigilance is a constant requirement to check the weaknesses of human nature.

Cummings Is Wrong To Oppose Census Citizenship Question

Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings opposes a proposed 2020 census question which would ask: “is the person a citizen?’.

Why?

Cummings, along with many other fellow Democrats, contends that the question will cause a decrease in census participation.

While that may indeed be true, the question as worded is not to blame.  The question does not mention type of non-citizen status.

A census, every ten years, is constitutionally-mandated.  The stated purpose is to determine the number of residents so that Congressional boundaries can be drawn to contain “equal” numbers. 

The census is now used for other reasons as well, including pro-rata distribution of federal funds.  And the Department of Justice wants the question to aid in the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. 

The inclusion of a citizenship question makes sense for another reason, too.  It’s common sense to recognize that citizens are likely to feel a stronger allegiance to the nation than those who are not.  That is a fact that should, potentially, have a bearing on the country’s future immigration policies.

As for the concern about the level of census participants, Federal law forbids the answers from being shared with law enforcement or immigration agencies.

Accordingly, the wise course is to conduct publicity campaigns about the purposes of census questions and the protection provided to respondents.

That is certainly better than Cummings’ efforts to deprive the government of valuable information about America’s populace.

Cummings is simply engaging in demagoguery when he claims, as he did last month, that the Administration is “rushing ahead with a politically- motivated decision that will jeopardize the full, fair and accurate count our Constitution demands.”

 

 

Being Nasty Earns Its Own Rebuke

Laura Ingraham, a bright, usually thoughtful, prime- time star on Fox News, got personal and nasty last week.  Big mistake.

Conservatives ae accustomed to being the targets of personal and unkind attacks from the left.  Ad hominem is necessary when substantial rejoinders are weak.

But responding in kind is rarely a good idea.

Ms. Ingraham took aim at Dave Hogg, a student at the Florida high school where seventeen people were slain, who has been a popular spokesman for anti-gun measures.  She tweeted a snide remark about this young fellow’s rejection for admission by four California colleges.

Why?  Did this failure reflect on his viewpoint?  Hardly.  Did Laura Ingraham believe that his lack of success was a deserved comeuppance for his calls for tightened gun laws?  Nasty.

Attacks by a prominent adult pundit on a seventeen year old, at the very least, seem unfair.  But worse, they reflect poorly indeed on the source when they are personal.

We on the right would be quick to condemn someone on the left who conducted herself that way.  But Laura Ingraham generated little – if any – disapproval from fellow conservatives.

In fact, she expressed regret for her message only after social media exploded with condemnation.  Yet her reaction was mealy-mouthed, expressing her “sorrow” in the venerable “I don’t really mean it but have to placate critics” manner favored by celebrities.  “I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.”

Really?  How about acknowledging that what you wrote was wrong and mean.  It was, regardless of whether it gave offense or not.

We conservatives have enough problems in attracting supporters without being burdened with compatriots who validate the disrespect displayed by our foes.