Donald Trump — as is his wont — used quite hard and direct language to begin a renovation project that is long overdue, a dramatically corrected assessment of Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). I have no objection to describing and respecting McCain as a “hero” for his long and painful internment in a North Vietnamese prison. He was shot down, wounded, suffered, persevered, and lived to get home. But since returning home he has exploited, for his personal benefit and to his country’s cost, his status as a former POW more shamelessly and ruthlessly than any other POW I can recall. McCain has dined out on his imprisonment for decades, and has used the protection afforded by the citizenry’s respect for his military service to do nothing but harm to the nation that has revered him.
Let us first get the three most obvious points about the Iran nuclear deal out of the way.
Well, the New York Times editorial board, that reliable abettor of all the liars, haters, and fantasists (AKA: Democrats) who detest the American South and lust to rewrite America’s history into party-serving fiction, has endorsed dumping Andrew Jackson in favor of rewarding a woman with his place on the twenty dollar bill.
As on all Independence Days, the media is trotting out the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence and suggesting that they are the only part of the document that matters and that they are passages that by themselves express what Jefferson and his 40-plus co-drafters called “the American mind.”
The recent and rapid successes of the Islamic State (IS) in seizing Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq, together with its three successful same-day strikes on 26 June 2015 in Kuwait, France, and Tunisia seem to have left British Prime Minister David Cameron rather panicky — like a twitchy kitten experiencing its first thunder-and lightning storm.
If there ever was a week in our Union’s history demonstrating that the national government must always be suspected of being the enemy of Americans, their liberty, and their social cohesion, this past week surely was the one.
Well, the Charleston killings appear to have unleashed those who lead the Democratic Party and most of the U.S. media — that may be a redundancy — to make every effort to not only make race relations worse in the United States but to strain them to the breaking point if at all possible. Why? Two reasons really. First, with a grafter, liar, agent-of-multiple-foreign powers, and Benghazi-butcher like Hillary Clinton to lead them in the next presidential election, the Democrats need to make sure that Black Americans turn out in huge numbers in 2016 to vote against their own dearest interests and ensure they get at least four more years of the Obama policies that have economically ravaged the Black community economically.
Nine black people shot dead in their church in Charleston, South Carolina, apparently by a young and mentally disturbed white man. A tragedy. A time for sympathy and prayer. A time for empathetic silence.
There seems to be great Republican resistance to the idea that their interventions in Iraq and the Muslim world are the main cause of both the mess in Iraq and the growing and increasingly powerful worldwide Islamist movement. To the extent that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic senators and congressmen joined the Republicans in illegally delegating the war-declaring power to George W. Bush there is a point to the Republicans’ resistance. The correct formulation of the statement is that both parties are equally responsible for the mess in Iraq and for the formidable Islamist foe that now exists. Also a correct statement is that the bulk of both parties now want the United States to become an even stronger motivator of and recruiter for the Islamists by expanding the military re-intervention in Iraq that began in the summer of 2014. Before that occurs it would be best to review a few facts:
Those men who wrote our Constitution made it perfectly intelligible to anyone who cared to read it. They also left some flexibility in its articles to ensure that as time passed and circumstances changed the document would remain viable as the indispensable protector of the republic they created and of the liberty of citizens who delegated a limited amount of their sovereign power to the national government through its provisions. And after a long and often angry ratification debate, the first congress added a bill of rights to the Constitution as that document’s first ten amendments. These amendments were fully as clear as the text — perhaps more so — but less flexible than the body of the document because they dealt with the tenets of republican liberty which, if regularly and deliberately violated by the national government, would require that Americans, to paraphrase Jefferson, demolish the existing government and erect a new one that would better safeguard their liberties and their republic’s security.