…that they want Obama to bow even lower and grovel even more.
They are just laughing at him now.
Heat on Hillary’s emails
The revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email system are growing more troubling for the left, and in a way more puzzling. For example, we have this article in The New York Times, which seems to be leading the attacks. The headline is “Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record Requests” (on Benghazi, no less), and if that isn’t the sort of thing you might read in some conservative periodical I don’t know what is.
The reason for the Times going after Hillary like this can’t be the mere need for intellectual consistency because the left went after people on the right who used private email. Lack of consistency has never bothered the Times before, nor has the need to print the truth.
I aired some theories on their motivation yesterday, mostly amounting to their desire to get out in front of the story at the outset and let it blow over. But this “thwarting” accusation seems more serious than anything that’s been said before. Is the Times actually turning on Hillary, and if so why? Do they know something we don’t, some other more serious problems that could emerge later, after she’s nominated, and spoil Democrats’ chances in 2016? Are they trying to forestall her nomination entirely?
My alternate explanation is an admittedly Byzantine one. Back in 2012 I mentioned that I thought Clinton had become Obama’s SOS with the idea that he would back her in 2016, but that Obama being Obama he couldn’t be trusted to actually follow through. Could he be sabotaging her now, letting the Times know that he doesn’t want her as his successor, and thus releasing the attack? It seems far-fetched, but the entire thing is so odd that it’s one of the few possibilities I can come up with. Maybe Hillary has some goods on him, and he’s afraid she’ll spill the beans, and he wants to discredit her? Or maybe she disagrees on his course in Iran, and he’s afraid she won’t continue his glorious legacy the way Liz Warren would?
At any rate, you can find some good pieces about Hillary’s email situation in the listings at Memeorandum.
Comedy on the right
A lot of people on the left might think the phrase “conservative comedy” could only be either (1) a sarcastic description of everything the right does, or (2) an oxymoron.
I once had an argument with an acquaintance on the left who swore that the right was completely devoid of humor. After feigning insult because I like to think of myself as both conservative and at least occasionally intentionally funny, I insisted that there’s plenty of humor on the right, and that my friend just didn’t know enough people on the right to realize the truth of that. I did.
But that was before Greg Gutfield had appeared on the Fox News horizon. If our discussion had occurred after that event, I would have referred my friend to Gutfield’s show “Red Eye,” which is not only genuinely funny but which features humor of the sort a leftie could appreciate—hip, ironic, off-the-wall, with lots of sexual references. It’s the sort of thing I’d think would appeal to the young, as well.
How do I know so much about Gutfield’s show, which appears on Fox at 3AM? Well, I said I was a night owl, and although I don’t watch it often, every now and then it just so happens that I do, if only for a few minutes. During the 2012 election I remember thinking that the right should promote the show heavily to young people, as an example of the fact that conservatives aren’t hopelessly and ridiculously out of touch, dull, and serious. Gutfield is in a sense the conservatives’ secret weapon, although they may not realize it.
And now I read that Gutfield is leaving “Red Eye,” although the show itself will continue with a different host. He’s leaving to start a weekend show for Fox that will air at a more reasonable hour than 3 AM, and I’m all for it. The odd thing is where I read this news: in a paean to Gutfield published in, of all places, the The New Yorker.
Two examples of Gutfield’s humor will suffice. I don’t know that this sort of thing will appeal to my reader demographic, but he certainly made me laugh:
Sometimes, Gutfeld tweaked cable-news conventions, as when he purported to address banking reform by convening a sixteen-person panel of experts, including familiar Fox News personalities such as John Bolton, and markedly unfamiliar ones, such as Rosie O’Donnell. As he introduced them, they appeared (or seemed to appear) live, forming a four-by-four matrix of pundit redundancy””by which point it was time, of course, for Gutfeld to thank them all, by name, and then end the segment…
…[I]n 2009…Gutfeld was obliged to apologize to the Canadian military, after a particularly irreverent discussion. The head of the Canadian land forces had said that the Army might need “a short operational break” lasting “at least one year” following its engagement in Afghanistan. Gutfeld had wondered whether this might not be “the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country,” adding, “The Canadian military wants to take a breather, to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants.”
Well, you had to be there. Or you had to be pretty young.
Gutfield was a good friend of Andrew Breitbart, and the latter was a guest on Gutfield’s very first show. Later, Gutfield said that the interesting thing about Breitbart was that “there wasn’t anything like him in the conservative movement.” True, and the same goes for Gutfield. Conservatives should pay attention.
A rhetorical observation
I’ve said many times on this blog that I don’t like political speeches and generally hate to listen to them, except for Churchill’s.
But I immediately noticed a phrase in Netanyahu’s speech today that I think was his tribute to Churchill. I have read that Netanyahu sees his role as issuing a vitally important warning of impending danger, much as Churchill warned Parliament about Hitler and the grave peril a re-armed Germany represented.
I see that this comparison was not lost on John Boehner, either:
Mr Netanyahu is due to be presented with a bust of Winston Churchill by the Republican speaker John Boehner, who controversially invited him to speak in Washington without discussing the matter with the White House.
Interesting, considering that early in his presidency Obama returned a bust of Churchill to the British.
Here’s the phrase in Netanyahu’s speech that caught my ear:
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
And although Netanyahu’s delivery can’t be compared to Churchill’s (whose can?), this is the moment it conjured up:
I would guess that Netanyahu was fully aware of the reference. I doubt very much that the same could be said of Obama.
[NOTE: I want to clarify that I think Netanyahu’s speech was good.
But I mean it when I say I almost never like speeches by politicians, except for Churchill. I suspect I would have liked Lincoln as well, but there’s no recording. In Churchill’s case I respond to the incredible trifecta of his sonorous voice; his ability to write and deliver forceful and beautiful and completely clear phrases, almost like poetry; and the profound thoughts he is expressing.
I don’t think anyone compares.
I tend not to be an auditory processor in general. But I also (and this may sound paradoxical, but I don’t think it is) am extremely sensitive to tone in human voices. I loved Churchill’s. Netanyahu’s (and that of most speakers) doesn’t have the timbre; it sounds flattish to me.
But that’s not really any special dig at Netanyahu. As non-Churchillian speeches go, his was a good one: clear, forceful, and especially graceful under the circumstances.
See the left’s reaction, if you have a strong stomach.]
Is Hillary in trouble?
There are two newish problems for Clinton, both related to her tenure at State.
The first is the fact that the Clinton Foundation accepted foreign contributions while Hillary was Secretary. The second is that during the time she held that office she never used government email to transact her official business, instead relying on a private email account.
Both things may be in violation of the law. Both things are certainly highly suspicious. I find it curious that the NY Times broke the second story when they didn’t have to cover it, as the paper has demonstrated time and again how adept it is at picking and choosing and ignoring the stories it wishes to ignore.
I don’t have an answer, except that maybe it’s a way to fully address the story now and see which way the wind blows. Hillary is increasingly seen as having some liabilities as a candidate in 2016, and better to find out as early as possible how serious those drawbacks are. However, the MSM and the left have learned from reaction to the Obama administration that the American people do not (as Richard Fernandez might say) “…seem to notice anything; we have the responsiveness of a corpse and it’s interesting to consider how long till we become one.” This may give them good reason to believe these new stories will blow over quickly and to little effect.
Not a pretty picture. But I agree that there is a lethargy abroad in the land, a jaded acceptance of these sorts of things as business as usual—the IRS scandal and Benghazi and Obama’s grab for power in encouraging illegal immigration and perhaps even raising taxes through executive action rather than the legislature (which is the newest plan, apparently). In the immortal words of one Hillary Clinton, the public may be feeling that, “What difference ”“ at this point, what difference does it make?”
The answer is “plenty.” But not if the American people no longer care. Perhaps we have become a nation of men, not laws, rather than “a government of laws, and not of men.” In this article in The American Spectator, David Catron is writing about the pending Obamacare case of King vs. Burwell. But he might have been writing about any number of actions of this administration that have demonstrated a willingness to disregard the law in order to reach the left’s desired ends:
If Roberts is once again cowed, and allows the IRS to rewrite an act of Congress to suit the Obama administration’s political agenda, our President will regard it as a sign that he has safely crossed the constitutional Rubicon. It’s no coincidence that John Adams included Livy among those who influenced his view that a republic was “a nation of laws, not of men.” Livy personally witnessed the events that converted Rome from the former to the latter. If the Court caves again, we will have witnessed the same fundamental transformation of our country.
When Obama talked about fundamentally transforming America, how many people understand that this was what he meant? Quite a few, but not nearly enough. Certainly by 2012, however, it was crystal clear, and still America voted for him.
Hillary Clinton seems poised to continue with the program should she be elected the next president. Why would she respect the rule of law when Obama hasn’t? Why should she, when he has shown Congress (and perhaps the courts as well) to be a toothless tiger? Why would anyone respect the rule of law after Obama?
Netanyahu’s speech
Here’s an open thread to discuss Netanyahu’s speech.
[ADDENDUM: Transcript here.
And if you read to read some depressing stuff, read the comments here.
And Ace has quite a roundup of mocking/trivializing tweets from the liberal/left politicians and pundits on Netanyahu’s speech. It’s exactly as expected, but still must be seen to be believed.]
Catch up with Fernandez
Sometimes I think this blog could consist entirely of daily links to the writings of Richard Fernandez and some choice excerpts, and it would be a net gain for my readers.
No, I’m not going to give up writing, and defer to Fernandez instead. But I will for this particular post.
On spying a copy of Mein Kampf in a rack of free religious pamphlets at his church, Fernandez writes:
Evil intentionally leaves its artifacts in the most sacred places of its victims in order to gauge whether there is any resistance left about. If there is no reaction they’ll enlarge the abomination…
Lately we don’t seem to notice anything; we have the responsiveness of a corpse and its interesting to consider how long till we become one. I wondered how long that Mein Kampf sat on that shelf, if one or several Western parishioners who recognized it stifled the impulse to object to its presence under one of the many inhibitions were are lumbered with…
We are conflict-averse. We want to be left alone but by ironic consequence, we will not be. As a whole we have tended to confuse Christianity with passivity, and civility with letting things slide, as if the whole message of the Gospels and the entire content of tolerant civilization consisted of taking punches on the chin and begging for more…
…the former idea of Christian otherwordliness was to never fear the consequences of doing the right thing. You did the principled thing and took what came, trusting that in life there was nothing to really fear but cowardice and evil. “For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his soul?” It is the complete opposite of passivity. And we have lost the sense of it. We have lost its secular equivalent too.
Today we as a civilization are far more worried about what people will say…For so long as we ask: “If I argue shall I be considered bigoted?” ”Will we be judged as lacking in civility?” ”Will I still be invited to cocktail parties?” And that classic: “who am I to judge anyway?” then we will deserve to perish.
Please read the whole thing. And some of the comments are excellent, too.
Actually, I could just say read everything Fernandez ever wrote. But I’ll highlight one more essay in particular:
…[Obama] needs Iran to get him out of the jam caused by his feckless withdrawal from the region. ISIS flourished in the resulting vacuum and daily humiliates the president with publicized outrages. With Obama powerless to prevent it, he needs someone who can pull him out of the quicksand.
But as the Daily Beast notes the price will be steep. “The bargain for making a deal with Iran, these critics say, has allowed Iran a free hand to assert dominance in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.” Having spent years campaigning against American military action Obama has essentially left himself no other choice but to rely on someone else…
…Micah Zenko at Foreign Policy is calling the debacle Obama’s Bay of Pigs in the Desert. The Obama administration has effectively destroyed its own credibility, by the ample display of stupidity, possibly past the point of recovery. As a Brookings Institution article puts it “If America leads, will anyone follow?”…
Who wants to join the club where Obama’s the leader of the band? Not unless you want a knife in the back. The late Russian oppositionist Boris Nemetsov speaking from beyond the grave in a September, 2013 Foreign Policy article said: “Obama is a Hollywood actor, a weak man with no balls. Nobody should ever expect him to help Russians seeking civil freedom.”…
The president who is publicly nursing his wounded honor in anticipation of Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech is also the same president pathetically hanging on Tehran’s rulers every word, like a waiter expecting a tip. The Iranians themselves have characterized Obama as ”˜desperate to reach a nuclear deal’, as if he were some loathesome toady. All the same he is counting on them to beat ISIS, having made a hash of his own efforts. What a crazy situation it is when an American president’s fortunes depend on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard…
…By outsourcing operations to Iran Obama is giving up the last shreds of American freedom of action in the region. He is thereby opening the door to a great danger.
Again, I suggest you read the whole thing.
Obama, Netanyahu, Alinsky, and Feinstein
Roger Simon calls the pending Iran deal possibly “the worst deal ever made,” and issues a prediction that could be correct:
I don’t enjoy making predictions because I’m usually wrong, but this is what I suspect will transpire as of Sunday night, March 1. A deal ultimately will not be made. Khamenei never wanted one in the first place, only to mark time for more nuclear research. To make a deal would, for him, undermine too many years of hating America, undercutting the rationale for his hideous regime. BUT”¦ Israel (specifically pushy Netanyahu), not Iran, will be blamed for the failure by the U.S. administration and its MSM minions, led by the New York Times. Iran will collude with this, dropping the proper hints ”” if it weren’t for those Israelis we would have had an agreement, but you know they can’t be trusted. The Republican presidential candidates will be swept up in this. They better be ready, but I fear they are not. They don’t impress me as a particularly sophisticated bunch on the international front, I’m sorry to say, and the Iranians know how to play disinformation-hardball almost as well as the Russians. I hope I’m wrong in all this. I hope Netanyahu knocks that same hardball out of the proverbial park and with it some sense into the American public. But I worry.
I don’t know. If I had to bet, I think Khamenei will accept the deal and that it means nothing to him except as a signal that Obama will not and cannot stop him from doing whatever he wants.
Simon goes on to add:
To the Democratic senators and congressmen and women not attending Netanyahu’s speech, in the famous words of George Orwell, you are “objectively pro-Fascist” (in this case pro-Islamofascist). To the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, you are racist with a capital-R if you do not attend. Netanyahu is no more coming here to “disrespect the president” than he is because Obama is part black. Netanyahu is coming here because he takes the words “never again” more seriously than any phrase imaginable. That is the primary job description for the prime minister of Israel.
One of the most distinctive things about the fuss Obama has made about Netanyahu’s speech is not to emphasize their policy disagreements but to focus on the idea that Netanyahu’s overriding motivation for the speech is to win the upcoming Parliamentary election. Like all politicians, Netanyahu is a political animal, and that’s got to be a consideration. But Obama’s stance ignores the existential threat Israel faces and trivializes the dispute in a way that would be almost beyond belief in anyone but Obama. In Obama, however, it’s an unsurprising projection of his own overwhelming narcissism and the dominance of political motivations in his own hierarchy.
In addition, let us never forget that Obama is an Alinskyite. As such, he is following Alinsky’s rule #12 in his treatment of Netanyahu. Rule #12 has long been one of the favored tools in Obama’s well-stocked Alinsky kit. But Netanyahu is the only supposed ally I can recall Obama using it with:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Joining in with the implementation of Alinsky’s Rule #12 is California’s Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, who wraps herself in the mantle of her supposed Judaism (although she is at most a secular Jew on her father’s side; her mother was Catholic and Feinstein is a graduate of San Francisco’s Sacred Heart High School) in order to criticize Netanyahu for “arrogance” in presuming to speak for Jews:
“He [Netanyahu] doesn’t speak for me on this. I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community. There are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit Israel, candidly.”
Here is what Netanyahu actually said:
“I feel deep and genuine concern for the security of all the people of Israel,” Netanyahu told journalists on the tarmac, his wife by his side, before boarding his flight. “I will do everything in my ability to secure our future.”
In a press release before leaving, he called the trip a “fateful, even historic mission.”
“I feel that I am the emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish People,” Netanyahu said. “I am deeply and genuinely concerned for the security of all Israelis, for the fate of the nation, and for the fate of our people and I will do my utmost to ensure our future.”
Netanyahu was speaking of the Jewish people as a whole and about their survival, and even made it clear that not all Israelis or Jews agree with him. Nevertheless, it is his responsibility to prevent another genocide if he can help it.
I would remind Sen. Feinstein that in a Holocaust neither her disagreement with Netanyahu nor her secularism nor her half-Jewishness would protect her from being identified—and persecuted or killed—as a Jew. And Iran will not be making such fine distinctions either.
Nemstov’s murder…
…represents a warning shot:
How could such a prominent politician ”” a founder of the opposition Solidarity Party, a sitting member of the Yaroslavl city parliament ”” be gunned down so brazenly, within steps of the Kremlin? “We didn’t kill members of government,” Gleb Pavlovsky, an independent political consultant who used to work for Putin, told me over the phone. “It’s an absolutely new situation.” Olga Romanova, a prominent opposition activist and a close friend of Nemtsov, said, “There are more cameras in that spot than there are grains in a packet of grain.”…
Yet we can be sure that the investigation will lead precisely nowhere. At most, some sad sap, the supposed trigger-puller, will be hauled in front of a judge, the scapegoat for someone far more powerful. More likely, the case will founder for years amid promises that everyone is working hard, and no one will be brought to justice at all. This has been the pattern for other high-profile killings, like those of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the whistle-blower Sergei Magnitsky…
Ilya Yashin, a member of Nemtsov’s Solidarity Party, was of the same mind. “It’s totally obvious for me that it’s a political killing,” he said. “I don’t have the slightest doubt about that.” Maxim Katz, another opposition activist, claimed on Twitter that, any way you slice it, Putin is responsible: “If he ordered it, then he’s guilty as the orderer. And even if he didn’t, then [he is responsible] as the inciter of hatred, hysteria, and anger among the people.”
It’s hard to argue with this last point.
This case is strangely parallel to the Nisman murder in Argentina. The differences are large—Nisman was a prosecutor, Nemstov an opposition polician; the Argentine government alleged that Nisman had committed suicide, whereas Putin isn’t trying that ploy because it’s so obvious Nemstov was murdered. But both governments are trying hard but unconvincingly to pin the deaths on people attempting to harm or frame them.
Texas raid
[Via Drudge.]
WND reports:
In a deliberate “show of force,” federal and local police forces raided a political meeting in Texas, fingerprinting and photographing all attendees as well as confiscating all cell phones and personal recording devices.
Members of the Republic of Texas, a secession movement dedicated to restoring Texas as an independent constitutional republic, had gathered Feb. 14 in a Bryan, Texas, meeting hall along with public onlookers…
Information Liberation noted, “The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out ”˜simulated court documents’ ”” summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure. These ”˜simulated documents’ were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a ”˜show of force’ ”“ 20 officers and an extremely broad search warrant.”
The invalid court summons was signed by Susan Cammak, a Kerr County homeowner, and David Kroupa, a Republic of Texas judge from Harris County.
The search warrant against the Republic of Texas authorized the seizure of “all computers, media storage, software, cell phones and paper documents.” Kerr County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer said the seized devices “will be downloaded and reviewed to determine if others conspired in the creation and issuance of false court documents.”
If this report is true, it’s hard to avoid the thought that the action has something to do with the administration’s war on violent extremism, either directly or indirectly. But the group isn’t violent, you say? Ah, but it’s extreme, and isn’t it necessary to make sure it never gets that violent? But this was just fake court papers, and the names of the perpetrators were known, you say; why raid the whole group? The logical answer is intimidation of right-wing groups.
Obama’s failure to label the violent extremism that we are fighting “Islamic” has been criticized for the obvious reason that if we cannot name our enemy it is unlikely that we can fight it effectively (although Obama’s inability to fight it goes far deeper than a naming problem). But another problem with the term “violent extremism” is that it allows the administration to focus on what it sees as its enemies on the right, to label and define them as a large part of the terrorist problem, and to clamp down.
Think IRS versus the Tea Party, only with the tools of the police rather than those of the tax collector.
Carly Fiorina…
If you care about that what-color-is-the-dress thing…
…this is the best explanation of the phenomenon I’ve seen.
Originally, I was among the 70% of the population who see it as white-and-gold. But after reading the article, I was able to flip back and forth between seeing it as white-and-gold and black-and-blue. Which means that, according to the article, my “brain is game to change.”
Well, I already knew that.