This is the kind of situation in which John Bolton shines

Exactly the right guy to be delivering this message in Moscow:

On Saturday, President Trump announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. This treaty, signed when Ronald Reagan was president and the USSR still existed, essentially bans the US from possessing nuclear delivery systems that cover the 500 km-5500 km battle space. Russia has said since 2007 that it doesn’t see what it gets from adhering to the treaty and to make their point they have fielded weapon systems that flout the language of the treaty. In the meantime, the treaty prevented the US from responding to China’s development and deployment of nuclear systems the US can’t legally own.

Today, National Security Adviser John Bolton was in Moscow to deliver the bad news to the Russians face-to-face:

National Security adviser John Bolton held firm Tuesday to President Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from a landmark arms control treaty in place since the Soviet era.

Bolton gave no specific details on the next possible U.S. steps to withdraw from the deal to limit intermediate-range nuclear weapons.

But Bolton echoed Trump’s assertions of Russian violations of the pact, suggesting that no progress was made to ease the impasse during Bolton’s talks with top Russian officials including President Vladi­mir Putin.

The Kremlin denies any violations and says scrapping the 31-year-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, would be a “dangerous” development and could spark a new arms race.

“The American position is that Russia is in violation,” Bolton said at a news conference. “Russia’s position is that they are not in violation. So one has to ask how to ask the Russians to come back into compliance with something they don’t think they’re violating.”

In a bit of dark humor that underscored the moment, Putin quipped about the balance between peace and force represented by the Great Seal of the United States.

“As far as I can remember, the U.S. seal depicts an eagle on one side holding 13 arrows, and on the other side an olive branch with 13 olives,” Putin said, sitting across from Bolton at talks before the news conference. “Here’s the question, ‘Did your eagle already eat all the olives and only the arrows are left?’”

“Hopefully I’ll have some answers for you,” Bolton replied. “But I didn’t bring any more olives.”

“That’s what I thought,” Putin said, provoking laughter from Bolton.

What a refreshing change from the nonsense we usually get from our government's national security and foreign policy apparatus.

Tuesday roundup

Utter savages - today's edition:

On Monday night, a huge boulder was hurled through a window of the Bakersfield, California office of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Vandals subsequently stole office equipment following the shattering of the window.

Piers Morgan says this kind of stuff is what is driving the rise in Trump's - and the GOP's - rising poll numbers:

 Of course, Trump remains a hugely divisive and polarising figure with a penchant for flying loose with the truth and heavy on the inflammatory rhetoric.

But love him or loathe him, there is no denying that he’s winning.

So once again, I can only advise the Democrats to stop their ridiculously self-defeating state of perpetual Trump outrage and work out how they’re actually going to beat him.

Because right now, Trump’s kicking your a**.

Also along these lines, Roger L. Simon at PJ Media says that "The Caravan Means the Wall Will Be Built."

David French at NRO says, "Stop it with this idiocy about how the possible rollback of Title IX's definition of sex to include people who resent the DNA they were born with (an expansion of the definition that happened on the Most Equal Comrade's watch) somehow deprives such people of their humanity."

Robert Stacy McCain on how listening to the likes of Richard Florida has accelerated our cultural rot:

One of the Bad Ideas of recent years that bothers me most — because it is both widely believed among the elite and easily demonstrable as wrong — is Richard Florida’s theory of the “Creative Class”:

While I was in Massachusetts last fall for a book event hosted by Pete Da Tech Guy, we visited a Mexican restaurant in Worcester, a somewhat run-down city that was once a major manufacturing center. Picking up the local free alternative weekly Worcester Magazine, I was thumbing through it and noticed an ad proclaiming the city’s enthusiastic devotion to LGBT rights.
I doubt that anyone in America, asked to name a city notable for its vibrant homosexual community, would name Worcester, Mass., off the top of their head, but it was obvious the local Chamber of Commerce had bought into Richard Florida’s analysis, which uses “a gay index (ranking cities by the concentration of gay couples in the population)” as one metric of urban growth potential within his “creative class” theory . . .

The problem is that this is a reversal of cause and effect. Prosperity attracts artists and intellectuals to a city, but they are not the ones who create the basis of prosperity. Ancient Athens was famed for its architecture and philosophy, but its prosperity was due to the success of the Athenians in commerce and in war. Through the Aegean port of Piraeus, the ancient Athenians developed a vast merchant empire, establishing colonies throughout the region, as far as modern-day Turkey and Italy, and the wealth obtained by trade enabled the Athenians to equip a powerful army and navy. The Athenians were an adventurous, enterprising and warlike people, and it was these qualities that made their city wealthy, thus attracting the artists and philosophers. Richard Florida’s “creative class” theory gets this causation exactly backwards, confusing certain traits of wealthy places (especially tolerance of homosexuality) as the reason those places became wealthy.

Great Jake Wagner piece at The Resurgent entitled "the Collective 'We' and the Republican Form of Government." He launches into his subject by noting how Michigan leftists are fond of talking about "our water."

Erdogan sees an opportunity to burnish Turkey's credentials as a major player

He gave a speech this morning in which he proclaimed nothing less than that Turkey was becoming the world's "joint conscience." A statement like that makes for a useful litmus test among the other world-stage players, particularly those in his region. How will Iran receive such a statement? How about the new populist governments and movements in Europe? NATO? Russia? The United States, which recently got back one of its citizens who had been languishing in Turkish prison on flimsy charges?
He's not wrong about the basics of the Khashoggi affair, of course. The removal of security cameras inside the Saudi embassy shortly before Khashoggi's arrival, the body double, reports of Khashoggi's body parts showing up. Pretty damning stuff, either separately or in sum.
And let us remember this further layer of complication: Khashoggi was an Islamic hardliner, supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The fact is that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are among the world's most egregious human-rights violators. And they're both ostensible US allies.
Saudi Arabia has been useful for two main reasons: its oil and the fact that it is so resolutely opposed to Iranian hegemonic designs that it is willing to look at cooperative measures with Israel.
This may be the bridge too far, though.
It gets sticky, though, doesn't it? Taking severe measures against Saudi Arabia should not push us into some kind of Erdogan-led camp that might or might not include Russia.
In a way, this situation points up just what is truly exceptional about America. The US is and always has been driven by an idea: ordered liberty. And because it's had a strong moral foundation, it's been able to stay relatively true to its core ideal. While most of the world continues to proceed along the age-old model of world affairs - power centers making moves based on consolidation and, if possible, expansion, of that power - we still, despite a weakening of our clarity of vision in recent decades, focus on freedom and its resultant human advancement.
We must keep a level head as this situation plays out, but what does that look like? Obviously, we have to call out Saudi Arabia and make it pay. But we need to scoot Erdogan out from behind the podium and exert the kind of leadership that marshals the West to steadfastness. Erdogan's notion of a "joint conscience" must not hold sway.
That's about all we can do. Respond morally to grim developments in a perpetually broken world. Be on record as having done the right thing even as bad actors make complicated messes.

Who we are

Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation, in the course of a NRO article about a series of dinner seminars for "mid-career professionals who want a deeper understanding of conservatism," has occasion to revisit the Sharon Statement, the 1960 founding document of Young Americans for Freedom.

There's no improving upon the way it expresses the full breadth and depth of our worldview:

We, as young conservatives believe:

• That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
• That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
• That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
• That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
• That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government; and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
• That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: Does it serve the just interests of the United States?

Although Russell Kirk's six canons, here summarized by Smith, are pretty good, too:

 (1) A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society. (2) Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery, while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing conformity. (3) Civilized society requires order and hierarchy. (4) Property and freedom are inseparably connected. (5) Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than reason. (6) Society must change but slowly.

Of course, the LITD articulation of The Three Pillars is a worthy contribution to the conversation as well:

1.) Free-market economics, which begins with the premise that a good or service is worth what buyer and seller agree that it is worth - period. No other party has any business being involved in that agreement - certainly not government.

2.) An understanding that Western civilization has been a unique blessing to humankind. (Judeo-Christian morality, Greco-Roman model of representative democracy, the great scientific and artistic achievements.)

3.) A foreign policy based on what history tells us about human nature. This plays itself out as our allies knowing we have their backs, our adversaries respecting us, and our enemies fearing us. 

And they all fit together seamlessly. A fully matured conservatism understands why transcendence, the right to own things, and vigilant protection of the American experiment are each and all indispensable elements.

That's all LITD is or ever has been defending. Dragging a particular brand over the finish line for the sake of tribal gotcha has nothing to do with what we're about.

 

What's the productive way to view this Donald Trump character at this juncture?

Two worth-your-read pieces out today provide the answer.

One, written by David Gelernter and published at the Wall Street Journal, is entitled "The Real Reason they Hate Trump."

The other, written by Suzanne Venker and appearing at the Washington Examiner, is entitled "Why Trump and the GOP Will Win Suburban Voters Like Me."

Both writers take such care to forthrightly confront the Very Stable Genius's glaring shortcomings that, were it not for the conclusion they draw, they'd probably come in for derision by the VSG's throne-sniffers as "Never Trumpers."

Gelernter's unsparing in his candor:

. . . he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.

Mr. Trump lacks constraints because he is filthy rich and always has been and, unlike other rich men, he revels in wealth and feels no need to apologize—ever. He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton.

As is Venker (and Heather MacDonald, by way of Venker):

. . . here's the thing: Trump's boorish behavior is not specifically aimed at women. That's his modus operandi toward any person, male or female, who attacks him. Indeed, the man doesn't discriminate at all. There's no reason for women, in suburbia or anywhere else, to feel slighted due to their sex. 

Do women voters actually like Trump? That's hard to answer, but I believe Heather Mac Donald said it best: "I view Trump as an incredibly painful dilemma: I support his policies but deplore his personality. I don’t think he’s a racist and sexist. I just think he is the worst possible example of an adult male. He is thin-skinned, gratuitously vindictive, the opposite of magnanimous." 

For Gelernter, the appeal in spite of this is that Trump, unlike leftists - in particular, the last two Dem presidential candidates - doesn't look down his nose at normal Americans:

. . . my job as a voter is to choose the candidate who will do best for America. I am sorry about the coarseness of the unconstrained average American that Mr. Trump conveys. That coarseness is unpresidential and makes us look bad to other nations. On the other hand, many of his opponents worry too much about what other people think. I would love the esteem of France, Germany and Japan. But I don’t find myself losing sleep over it.

The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know their real sins. They know how appalling such people are, with their stupid guns and loathsome churches. They have no money or permanent grievances to make them interesting and no Twitter followers to speak of. They skip Davos every year and watch Fox News. Not even the very best has the dazzling brilliance of a Chuck Schumer, not to mention a Michelle Obama. In truth they are dumb as sheep.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American. We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.

Venker puts it thusly:

 The same aspects of his personality that are the most offensive are the very same ones that make him an effective leader. 

Suburban women voters are smart enough to see this for themselves. Much to the media's dismay, we don't fall for their portrayal of Trump as a bigoted misogynist. We see through that rhetoric and stay focused on what he brings to the table, despite his flaws. “College-educated women want safety, security and healthcare protections — very much along with financial and economic health for themselves and our Country,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday. “I supply all of this far better than any Democrat (for decades, actually). That’s why they will be voting for me!” 

Indeed.

Matters of the economy, our courts and national security have been moving in a favorable direction in the last year and a half, not because the VSG has a coherent ideology, but because those around him who do have said, "This is good stuff that will have a positive impact," and he then just implemented it in git-'er-done fashion.

Bottom line: He's thoroughly unlikeable and often makes messes, but conservative policy is being enacted. Meanwhile, the opposition has taken its frenzied rage to levels that repel the normal people of post-America.

Utter savages - today's edition

The Senate Majority Leader showed remarkable self-control when he and his wife were descended upon last night:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, was confronted Friday night by some angry diners who loudly berated him for his politics.

The Kentucky Senator was eating dinner with his wife at Havana Rumba in Louisville, when 4 men confronted Mitch. The main aggressor screams at McConnell, "Why don't you get out of here?  Why don't you leave the entire country?"

The woman who shot the video tells us, before she started recording, the main aggressor slammed his fists down on McConnell's table, grabbed his doggie bag and threw the food out the door of the restaurant.

The woman says the main gripe seemed to be the Senator's stance on Social Security and health care.  McConnell recently said entitlement programs are the main cause of massive debt. The woman says before she started shooting, the main aggressor was screaming that McConnell was killing people with his views.

McConnell kept his cool and afterward thanked some of his supporters, shaking their hands.

This is not going to get less ugly. Just know that, fellow post-Americans.

Saturday roundup

Whoever comprised this mob that rushed Nancy Pelosi shouting "f---ing Communist" needs to knock it off, and right now. This is not acceptable.

The 2018 State of Theology survey has some disturbing numbers regarding the beliefs of a high number of self-described evangelicals. For instance, 51 percent believe that God accepts the worship of all religions, and 71 percent believe that human beings are basically good.

Theresa May has to win a challenging November 1 budget vote in Parliament in order to get the final Brexit deal approved.

Brian T. Allen at NRO reviews a current exhibit at the Morgan Library commemorating the 200th anniversary of the publication of Frankenstein.

Great PJ Media piece by John Hawkins entitled "The 5 Keys to Surviving Attacks from a Social Media Mob."

Great piece at The Stream by Hugh Whelchel entitled "What Back Teaches Us About Work, Worship and Service."

Two Dem candidates remove all doubt that they're not ready for prime time

I guess Krysten Simena is cool with writing off an entire, rather sizable, demographic:

Democratic Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, of Arizona, once described stay-at-home moms as leeches in a 2006 interview.

“These women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they’re choosing to live that life,” she told Scottsdale nightlife magazine 944. “That’s bullshit. I mean, what the f*** are we really talking about here?”

Okay, that was twelve years ago. It would be interesting to hear her explain any evolution in her views. She sure wasn't wishy-washy about what she thought then.

And Ocasio-Cortez announces to the world that she's gone full Al Gore:

 Democratic socialist congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to address global warming the same way America defeated the Nazis during World War II.

Speaking at a campaign event on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez made the case that, since Nazi Germany and global warming are both “existential threats,” the same tactics used against one should be levied against the other.

“So, when we talk about existential threats,” said Ocasio Cortez, “the last time we had a really major existential threat in this country was around World War II. So, we’ve been here before, and we have a blueprint of what we did before. None of these things are new ideas.” 

“What we had was an existential threat in the context of a war,” she continued. “And what we did was that we chose to mobilize and industrialize our entire economy and we put hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to work in defending our shores and defending this country.”

So of course, according to the New York Democratic socialist congressional candidate, the “same thing” should work to “get us to 100 percent renewable energy.”

“It may seem like really big, it may seem really ambitious, it may seem very radical, as people love to say, but the fact of the matter is that we’re dealing with a radical truth, and the more we choose to ignore it the worse we are doing by our children and our grandchildren and frankly ourselves,” she concluded.

Go get 'em, Alex!

The 4,000-strong mob at the Guatemala-Mexico border - initial thoughts

I'm not jumping on any specifics, but it sure seems like these people were put up to this. Some time had to go into organizing that many people. Who is the mastermind? (One activist guy, who heads an organization called People Without Borders, has been arrested.)

The way they broke through the border is indicative of the hubris that motivates them. What arrogance, thinking they're entitled to just make their way to the United States in violation of Guatemalan, Mexican and US law and start participating in an economy that US citizens work very hard every day to make as robust as you'll find anywhere in the world.

I'm confused about this business of them singing the Honduran national anthem. If it's so crappy there, what's with this show of patriotism? If they're so hot to come to the United States, shouldn't they begin acting like they're excited about assimilating into US society?

This is yet another example of a fundamental truism: Some cultures are superior to others. That being said, these people need to stay put and make their own cultures and economies healthy.

I hope Mexico continues to cooperate. That's so preferable to sending the US military to the US-Mexico border, which is otherwise going to be necessary.

Gutter-level political discourse: seems like everybody wants to play

Joachin Castro shows off his bona fides as a member of the I-accuse-and-to-hell-with-any-evidence school:

Without evidence, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), a member of the House intelligence committee, said Jared Kushner might have passed a “hit list” to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman resulting in the apparent brutal slaying of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.  

Castro, during a CNN appearance Friday morning, cited unspecified “reporting that Jared Kushner may have, with U.S. intelligence, delivered a hit list, an enemies list, to the crown prince, to MBS, in Saudi Arabia and that the prince may have acted on that, and one of the people he took action against is Mr. Khashoggi.”

When CNN’s Poppy Harlow interjected that she was unfamiliar with such reporting and the network had not reported that, Castro reiterated that “I’ve seen reporting to that effect… that needs to be investigated.” While Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, is close with the Saudi crown prince, no one has accused Kushner of any involvement, let alone orchestration, in the Khashoggi killing.

Then there's the Very Stable Genius's contribution to post-America's search for civility:

President Donald Trump praised Montana Republican Rep. Greg Gianforte for assaulting a reporter during his campaign last May, saying "any guy who can do a body slam ... he's my guy" and made a gesture mimicking a body slam.

At a Montana rally Thursday night, Trump admitted, "I shouldn't say this," but continued and said, "there's nothing to be embarrassed about."

The comment comes at the same time as the administration responds to the disappearance and apparent murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Khashoggi was last seen entering the Saudi consulate on October 2 and Turkish media reports that an audio recording suggests Khashoggi was tortured and killed soon after entering the building before being dismembered.

Trump said Thursday "it certainly looks" like Khashoggi is dead. But, Trump said he is "waiting for the results" of investigations being conducted by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, after which he pledged to make "a very strong statement."

Gianforte pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault in June 2017 after he was convicted of "body slamming" Ben Jacobs, a reporter for The Guardian. A judge sentenced him to a 180-day deferred sentence, 40 hours of community service, 20 hours of anger management and a $300 fine along with a $85 court fee.

Trump said he found out about Gianforte assaulting a reporter when he was traveling in Rome, and initially was concerned it would hurt the Republican in the election. 

"Then I said, well wait a minute, I know Montana pretty well, I think it might help him. And it did," Trump said. The President's comments were met with laughter and applause from the crowd in Montana.

Thanks for nothin', President Face-Palm-A-Day.

 

Federal judges must not be de facto legislators

Excellent piece at NRO by John Yoo and James C. Phillips that one ought to really digest so as to use the next time one gets in a snit with a leftist who tries to frame conservative federal judges as GOP mouthpieces. (I recently got into a near shouting match with a lesbian who took that position. Her line of "reasoning" quickly devolved into the infantile assertion that Brett Kavanaugh is "against gay rights.")

Anyway,  I've rarely if ever seen such a lucid explanation of how the Left thinks in terms of how a particular judicial appointment is going to affect particularly demographic groups:

Democratic senators, as well as their expert witnesses called in opposition, advanced a view of a judge as simply the enabler of a political party’s policy preferences. They cross-examined Judge Kavanaugh on the specific outcomes he had reached in cases relating to certain groups of interest: minorities, women, environmental organizations, and the like. In their view, the only difference between a judge and a congressman is the former wears a robe.

Influenced by the Legal Realism movement, which is the basic approach taught in most American law schools today, these Democrats find law and facts to be mostly smoke and mirrors. Instead, to them, judges really exercise raw and unchecked political power in determining winners and losers. Judging is about outcomes, not process. To be a good judge is to pick the right winners. Lady Justice is not blind — she metes out justice with both eyes wide open so that she can favor the preferred class or group.

If judges simply advance political goals, then Democrats were at least honest in their desire for a judge who sympathizes with their favorite groups. That’s why President Obama said he was looking for judges with “empathy,” though undoubtedly it was not empathy for corporations, for example, but for groups he favored. Under this view, if you are a Democrat, you should only pick judges who vote for unions, racial minorities, and criminal suspects. If you are a Republican, you want judges who always vote for corporations and the police.

Republican senators, however, rejected this approach. Their view requires judges to be indifferent to the demographics of the parties before them. In Chief Justice John Roberts’s metaphor, judges are umpires who call balls and strikes, but do not promote personal preferences or prejudices. In other words, as Justice Kagan put it in her confirmation hearings, “the question is not, ‘Do you like this party or do you like that party? Do you favor this cause or do you favor that cause?’ . . . The question is what the law requires.”

The outcome of a case should not be the point, in other words — it’s the process judges use to interpret the law and apply it to the parties that really matters. Thomas Jefferson viewed judging as mechanical. He hoped for machine-like judges who would take the law, written by someone else, and apply it to facts presented by the parties. Of course, judging is not easy, and judges are human. But that ideal — that everyone is equal in the court of law, that there are no favorites before blind Justice — is as old as the Republic itself. Properly applied, it should make the judiciary, in Alexander Hamilton’s words, the “least dangerous [branch] to the political rights of the Constitution.”

But this is why leftists tremble in fear at the prospect of originalist majorities on federal benches. It requires them to get their agendas enacted by legislators, as the Framers intended, and that means convincing a sufficient number of their fellow voters of the merits of what they want to impose on society to elect legislatures favorable to it. Far more daunting than getting five black robes to seal the fate of certain cultural issues for at least decades if not forever.

But maybe that's not any less daunting, as it turns out. They certainly spent every last ounce of effort in trying to get that result a few weeks ago, and came up short of the mark.

How savage are they? - today's edition

This savage:

The Democratic Party has turned into a crazed, howling mob. It is degrading our public life to a degree that has not been seen since they seceded in 1861. That is an observation we could make every day; for now, let’s go with this story: “Blackburn backlash shocks Mt. Juliet restaurant owner.” 

Courtney’s Restaurant and Catering owner Tom Courtney said he’s experienced a strong social media backlash because he rented the event room at his Mt. Juliet business to U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Marsha Blackburn on Saturday.

Courtney said he’s been called a Nazi, an abuser, had his life threatened and said his staff has been verbally attacked.

Hundreds of posters on social media said they would boycott his restaurant because it was a local venue to Blackburn, who is running for a seat in the U.S. Senate against former Democratic Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen.

Mr. Courtney says he serves all comers at his restaurant, and it didn’t occur to him to turn down the Blackburn campaign.

He said if the Bredesen campaign called tomorrow to rent the room, he’d say yes. It’s business for a small business trying to eke out a living.
***
Courtney said he initially didn’t endorse the candidate, and just was being a businessman, but after what he’s been through he can support only Blackburn.

“I’m one who votes for the person, not the party,” he said. “But with everyone saying they are going to boycott my restaurant because Marsha came here to treat my employees and customers, I can’t even fathom people like that.”

Via InstaPundit. The Democrats are trying to bully their way back into power through mob actions of various kinds. What you think of the Republicans is pretty much irrelevant. The Democrats’ bullying tactics must not be allowed to succeed. The republic depends on it.

This is the logical arrival point for a party that has had disdain for basic human freedom as its foundation for over a hundred years.

The UN is a sewer of West-hatred - today's edition

Just where does the UN get off making this move?

The Palestinian Authority won a Tuesday vote to lead the G77 group of developing countries at the United Nations, while the United States said no such move could be supported because no Palestinian state has been admitted as a member state.

As the PA leads the G77 next year, though, it will essentially be acting like a full UN member.

The United States, Israel and Australia voted against the PA's chairmanship, while 146 countries voted in favor, 15 abstained, and 29 countries didn't vote.

"Australia's decision to vote no on this resolution reflects our long-standing position that Palestinian attempts to seek recognition as a state in international fora are deeply unhelpful to efforts towards a two-state solution," Australian UN Ambassador Gillian Bird told the General Assembly.

Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jonathan Cohen said that the U.S. "cannot support efforts by the Palestinians to enhance their status outside of direct negotiations."

"The United States does not recognize that there is a Palestinian state and notes that no such state has been admitted as a UN Member State. Therefore, we strongly oppose the Palestinian election as Chair of the G77, as well as this so-called enabling resolution," he said.

"If this misguided resolution is adopted, the United States will leave no doubt about where we stand," he added in remarks to the General Assembly. "When the Palestinians speak as chair of the G77 in the General Assembly, we will remind our fellow member states that the United States does not recognize that there is a Palestinian state and that no such state has been admitted as a UN member state."

Ambassador Nikki Haley affirmed in a statement that “the Palestinians are not a UN member state or any state at all" and vowed "the United States will continually point that out in our remarks at UN events led by the Palestinians." 

"Today’s UN mistake undermines the prospects for peace by encouraging the illusion held by some Palestinian leaders that they can advance their goals without direct peace negotiations," she said. "In fact, today’s vote does nothing to help the Palestinian people."

Cohen noted that "only UN member states should be entitled to speak and act on behalf of major groups of states at the United Nations" and "it is entirely inappropriate for an observer to play the role of representing a group of states in the General Assembly or elsewhere in the United Nations system."

In other words, that body taking up perfectly good real estate on the East River in Manhattan is supposed to be the United Nations, not the United Play-like Nations.

 

Dealing with the entitlement crisis is a prime example of why populism must not overshadow conservatism

LITD recently liked to a bracing and unflinching Manhattan Institute proposal for a federal budget that once and for all stems the tide of increasing government indebtedness.

Michael R. Strain at the American Enterprise Institute offers another important contribution to the conversation. He examines the political and ideological angle. In fact, the title of his piece at Bloomberg is, "If Republicans Won't Confront Entitlements, Who Will?"

He reviews the recent lack of Republican spine from ostensible conservatives, which mainly has appeared during election cycles when the likes of Mitt Romney and, more unfortunately, Paul Ryan, felt the need to couch their intentions in terms of "protecting" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from those who would cut spending on them.

But now we have layered upon that customary fecklessness this new populism that swept over the nation's political scene with the advent of the Very Stable Genius:

President Donald Trump’s position on Medicare and Social Security has carried over from campaign season and is outside the Republican norm.

He has repeatedly stated that he will not cut spending on Medicare and Social Security. The president's will about this appears to be strong. For example, he resisted his budget director’s attempt last fall to advocate for changes in Medicare and Social Security that would reduce their future spending along with the national debt.

For his part, House Speaker Ryan has still presented the typical GOP view. “Good reforms can mean that we can better perform the mission of these important programs, health and retirement security, without bankrupting the country,” he said last month. The speaker expressed optimism that if Republicans keep the House and expand their majority in the Senate following next month’s midterm elections, then such reforms could occur.

Count me as skeptical. Congressional Republicans have been quite happy to go where the president is pointing on entitlements and on much else. If anything, Democrats are moving toward expanding spending on these programs.

If Congressional conservatives don't grow spines and forthrightly address this, their principles will be hopelessly muddied, and there will be real-life implications:

Entitlement reform is more than an accounting exercise. At stake is the health care and retirement security for future generations. The sooner we act, the better we will be able to protect those who will be affected by the change. Conservatism has seen this issue as an exercise in advancing the common good.

The GOP’s turn away from reducing future entitlement spending is bad for conservatism, which has prided itself on promoting the common good and possessing a serious governing vision based on objective reality and prudent judgment.  

Populism is polluting this vision. President Trump knows who elected him, and many of his supporters think they would be hurt by changes to Medicare and Social Security. The GOP’s abandonment of entitlement reform is another example of putting the good of the whole aside in favor of what’s good for the tribe. 

Relying on the Very Stable Genius to have a "very good brain" and have a plan to "take care of everybody" is a pretty poor substitute for looking squarely at what we're facing and putting on the big-boy pants and dealing with it.

We'e here because about a hundred years ago, this nation became enamored of the notion that government ought to address the two givens of the human condition: getting sick and growing old. It was a bad idea, but that's water under the bridge. We now have to do what's necessary to avert the country being submerged in debt we can't ever repay.

This is very cool; can we do it here?

Hungary's government speaks bluntly about cultural rot posing as academic rigor:

A prestigious Hungarian university on Tuesday blasted a government decree that prohibits gender studies courses as a "major infringement" on academic freedom.

The decree, signed by Prime Minister Viktor Orban and in force since Saturday, dropped the subject from a list of masters degree programmes entitled to official accreditation and financial support.

Institutions are also now barred from launching new courses in the discipline, although students who have already begun courses may complete their studies, according to the decree.

"This is a major infringement on academic freedom and university autonomy," said the Budapest-based Central European University (CEU) in a statement.

"Eliminating this programme will be a significant loss to the Hungarian scholarly community and for democratically-minded public policy," said the CEU, one of only two universities in Hungary that offered gender studies degrees.

The decree is seen by critics as the latest attack by Orban's right-wing government on both university independence and political opponents of its socially conservative policies.

Orban's tough rhetoric and anti-immigration measures alarm critics but have bolstered his populist support at home and won him praise from other hardline European leaders.

In June a magazine owned by a close ally of Orban published a list of researchers at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, accusing them of working on "gay rights and gender science".

Orban's deputy Zsolt Semjen said later gender studies "has no business (being taught) in universities," because it is "an ideology not a science".

Labour market demand for gender studies graduates was also "close to zero," as "no-one wants to employ a gender-ologist," Semjen said.

The CEU, where gender studies has been taught for over two decades, is also embroiled in a bitter administrative dispute that the university says could drive it out of the Hungarian capital, its home since 1993.

A higher education law placing tough new requirements on foreign universities which passed last year was also seen by critics as targeting the CEU, founded by liberal US billionaire George Soros.

Attracting students from over 100 countries and also offering US-accredited programmes, the university has long been seen by Orban as a hostile bastion of liberalism.

Maybe Europe hasn't completely flatlined after all.

It's this kind of stuff - today's edition

Dems are rather put out with Elizabeth Warren for causing her identity-politics dustup so close to the midterms.

Conversely, I think a face-palm is warranted on the Right over this tweet from the Very Stable Genius:

“Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!

The overwhelming preponderance of his tweets are unnecessary, but this one is egregiously so.

At this late date, there are several gradations of right-of-center estimations of the VSG. Obviously, he still has his rabid cult followers. There's been a growing crowd of folks - think Erick Erickson and Bret Stephens - who still find him objectionable in most ways, but are warming to the idea of voting for him in 2020, given how off the charts the Left has become. Then there are those a little less convinced, but open. (That would be LITD.) Then there are those proud to wear that no-longer-relevant label "Never Trump." Think Bill Kristol. Then there are those who have bailed on the Republican Party and even conservatism. Think Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot.

I'll just say that the VSG squelches any growing appeal he's had for the likes of me on a regular basis. It's like having to go all the way down the hill to retrieve the rock and start back up all over again.