Update on the Star Chamber that is the “impeachment inquiry”

The New Neo Posted on by

You may have noticed that I’ve not been writing about every twist and turn of the current “impeachment inquiry” run by House Democrats. That’s because it’s a travesty and an obvious one at that. If the process is rotten, the whole thing is rotten.

So in that respect I’m with Scott Johnson of Powerline:

I can’t take anything that leaks out of the closed-door impeachment “inquiry” conducted by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff at face value. Schiff is conducting an impeachment campaign by orchestrated leaks. I decline to follow the leaked testimony until I can take a look at the full record with my own eyes.

The way the hearings have been structured is prejudicial on the face of it. The proceedings have been completely orchestrated by a prosecution (the Democratic Party) determined to find Trump guilty. There is no question about that and only a tepid and extremely half-hearted and inadequate pretense is being made to the contrary by Schiff and company. What’s more, the entire thing is being selectively leaked to an MSM completely in league with that prosecution. So if the word “lynching” is not literally true, it is an apt metaphor. But a more apt one is “kangaroo court” or “witch hunt” and/or “Star Chamber proceeding,” the latter being the term I happen to favor.

The left tries to liken this “inquiry” to grand jury testimony. Absurd. This is not a criminal proceeding under our ordinary legal system, and all precedent dictates that this is not the way to do it. This is the president of the United States, and this is about impeachment, which is not subject to grand jury proceedings.

But far more important than precedent is fundamental fairness to the electorate as well as to a duly-elected president, as well as the fact that the Founders were crystal clear that impeachment should never be used for partisan reasons.

What it really boils down to is whether the Democrats and their fellows in the MSM will be successful in convincing the public that this is on the up and up, despite the secrecy and the obviously selected leaks that cannot be checked out against any facts or even against the testimony the leaks are supposed to fairly represent. If the electorate has common sense and/or any grounding in civics or history, the vast majority of voters would recognize that this is a disgusting and un-American (yes, I think that word is appropriate) process that cannot and should not be rewarded. But does the public have those qualities? I certainly hope so.

Another factor is that the MSM has squandered most of the trust that used to be placed in it. If the electorate is going to buy this story, the MSM has to be trusted as well as the Democrats. Has the MSM cried wolf too many times? Or are enough people inclined to hate and distrust Trump more than they hate and distrust the MSM or the Democrats?

I cannot answer that question either. But another hope of mine is that the MSM, which has fully earned the public’s distrust, will not be trusted in this matter either, and that until the hearings are brought into the light of day, nothing going on right now in terms of the inquiry will be trusted.

The war against free speech marches on

The New Neo Posted on by

In Connecticut:

Two white UConn students have been arrested by campus police for repeatedly shouting a racial slur outside students’ apartments earlier this month.

The incident was captured on a now-viral video that has led to pointed conversations about racial inclusion on campus and sparked a rally Monday afternoon during which hundreds of students and the campus NAACP demanding action from top school officials.

Jarred Karal, of Plainville, and Ryan Mucaj, of Granby, both 21 years old, were arrested by the UConn Police Department and charged with ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race, university spokeswoman Stephanie Reitz said Monday night.

The law under which they were arrested is a seldom-used statute over 100 years old that was meant to deal with advertisements. But now it’s being used by our modern Red Guards determined to make sure that no one on campus ever feels the least bit bad because of something someone says.

And make no mistake about it, the people who believe this type of arrest is a good thing will not and have not stopped at campuses, although that is the epicenter right now. And note that these students were not just suspended or even expelled, they were arrested under a law that was not meant for this purpose and is clearly unconstitutional. It’s never been tested in the Supreme Court or any other appellate court because it’s almost never been enforced. I figure that now might be a good time for such a test.

Note that “hundreds of students and the NAACP” wanted “action” from the university against the two students yelling the epithets (which were by no means exclusively racial, by the way; they seem to have consisted of a number of impolite words). The current academic atmosphere encourages and teaches that free speech is not free if it hurts someone’s feelings, particularly in a racial or sexual sense (and probably other senses on the leftist agenda as well, because that’s not meant to be an exhaustive list).

Not only do the Red Guards require the arrest of those who would say the offensive words – and since there is no official list of words, who knows what might be included on it or how much it will expand – but they also are interested in prescribed speech in addition to prohibited speech. Just ask Jordan Peterson about that.

The federal bureaucracy is “a mortal threat to America”

The New Neo Posted on by

From Stephen Miller, who is a senior adviser for policy to Trump:

n 2016, President Trump ran against Washington’s “deep state” and “permanent bureaucracy,” said Miller, and they remain so angry that they are lying, leaking, and attacking the administration’s agenda.

The latest example is the planned book written by an anonymous inside critic and that follows efforts by bureaucrats to thwart Trump policies with leaks to liberal media and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

In an interview, Miller called inside attacks a “very grave threat,” and he explained it this way:

“It is best understood as career federal employees that believe they are under no obligation to honor, respect, or abide by the results of a democratic election. Their view is, ‘If I agree with what voters choose, then I’ll do what they choose. If I disagree with what voters choose, then I won’t, and I’ll continue doing my own thing. So basically it’s heads I win, tails you lose.

“‘If you elect Hillary Clinton, then I’ll implement all of her policies very faithfully, and if I see massive evidence of corruption on Hillary Clinton’s part, then I’ll keep it all a secret. If you elect a candidate I disagree with, then I’ll lie, I’ll leak, I’ll cheat, I’ll smear, I’ll attack, I’ll persecute, and I will refuse to implement, and I will obstruct at every single step of the way.’”

I also recall that the reason “the plumbers” were called that during the Nixon administration was that their goal was to plug leaks:

The White House Plumbers, sometimes simply called the Plumbers, the “Room 16 Project,” or more officially, the White House “Special Investigations Unit” was a covert White House Special Investigations Unit, established within a week after the publication of the “Pentagon Papers” in June 1971, during the presidency of Richard Nixon. Its task was to stop and/or respond to the leaking of classified information, such as the Pentagon Papers, to the news media. The work of the unit “tapered-off” after the bungled “Ellsberg break-in” but some of its former operatives branched into illegal activities while still employed at the White House together with managers of the Committee to Re-elect the President, including the Watergate break-in and the ensuing Watergate scandal.

It’s not really a new phenomenon, although it appears to have escalated in recent years and especially against Trump.

“Permanent” ceasefire announced between Turkey and Kurds

The New Neo Posted on by

Today’s announcement:

Speaking at the White House, Trump said that while a “permanent ceasefire” will be tough to maintain in the volatile region, he hopes it will last and end the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds.

“I do believe it will be permanent,” he said. “This was an outcome created by us, the United States, and nobody else…we’ve done something very, very special.”…

Trump added that if Turkey breaches the cease-fire, the sanctions could be reimposed.

“The sanctions are lifted unless something happens that we’re not happy with,” he added.

It’s definitely one of those “time will tell” things. But so far this seems like a good development.

Trump also added:

“Today’s announcement validates our course of action with Turkey that only a couple of weeks ago was scorned and now people are saying, ‘wow, what a great outcome, congratulations,'” Mr. Trump said.

I haven’t seen that happening, except for Republicans such as Lindsay Graham, who seem relatively pleased but not exactly what you’d call effusive. If you can find some Democrats praising Trump, I’d be very interested to see who those people are and what they are saying.

Lynching: Bill Clinton vs. Donald Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Clinton and Trump are both white guys, when last I checked.

But many Democrats called the Clinton impeachment and trial a lynching, despite the fact that due process was strictly observed and the Starr report had listed evidence of actual crimes. Whereas they are now united in claiming that likening the current star-chamber-like proceedings against Trump to a lynching is a travesty, an outrage, a slur against the history of black oppression.

Some of those criticizing Trump’s use of the term are even old white guys who are on record as having used it themselves to refer to Clinton’s impeachment, such as Joe Biden:

“Impeachment is not ‘lynching,’ it is part of our Constitution,” the former vice president said in a tweet on Tuesday. “Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable.”

In an appearance on CNN in October 1998, however, Biden said the impending impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton could be viewed as a “partisan lynching.”

“Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching or whether or not it was something that in fact met the standard, the very high bar, that was set by the founders as to what constituted an impeachable offense,” Biden said.

I suppose that’s because Clinton was the first black president, remember? And Trump is of course the modern incarnation of the KKK.

Lindsay Graham – another white guy – begs to differ with the condemnation of Trump:

“Yes, African-Americans were lynched, other people have people lynched throughout history,” Graham said. “What does lynching mean? That a mob grabs you, they don’t give you a chance to defend yourself, they don’t tell you what happened to you, they just destroy you.”

Well, they actually physically destroyed you, too, which seems quite different to me. But the word is often used metaphorically, and everyone – including the Democrats raising the current stupid hue and cry – is aware of that. But in what the left loves to refer to as the Age of Trump, their knowledge of metaphor goes out the window when the metaphor is used by Trump or the right.

I seem to recall that Clarence Thomas called the Anita Hill hearings a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves,” and he obviously didn’t mean he was being tortured and murdered in the literal sense. Thomas has been criticized plenty by Democrats, both before and since, but I don’t recall (and can’t find in a quick search right now) him being criticized for using that particular phrase – probably because he, as a black man, was given a pass, and also because back then people understood metaphors (as they did when the Democrats used it for Clinton).

[NOTE: What Thomas actually said – that the left does not allow black people to think for themselves and leave the leftist fold – has only become more true, and more viciously and frequently enforced, these days.]

On the delights of Delecto

The New Neo Posted on by

You probably have already heard that Romney has had a sock puppet identity on Twitter for which his username is “Pierre Delecto.”

I have to say that I’m fascinated by the chose of moniker. First, there’s “delecto” from the Latin for ” delight, charm, please.” And Pierre, of course, is the French variant of Peter but which originally meant “rock” or “stone” in French.

And then there’s the possibility of a pun on the Latin phrase “in pari delicto,” which is a legal term meaning “two persons or entities who are equally at fault,” where the court decides not to rule in favor of either of them.

For most people, though, it might conjure up another Latin phrase, “in flagrante delicto.” You all know that one, I bet: “in the very act of committing a misdeed : red-handed; in the midst of sexual activity.”

And now I’ll just tiptoe quietly away…

Canadians vote for more Trudeau…

The New Neo Posted on by

…but not for more of his party.

Actually, it was somewhat of a trouncing for Trudeau, although with all the parties involved he managed to be re-elected anyway:

Not only was Trudeau’s Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government — grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons — but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party’s share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % — less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer. (Despite receiving a greater percentage of the vote, the Conservative Party picked up 36 fewer seats than the Liberals.)…

…Liberals lost many seats in western Canada, and in fact were completely wiped out in oil-rich Alberta and agriculture-dependent Saskatchewan, signaling widespread displeasure there over the imposition of a punitive carbon tax, oil pipeline politics and arrogant indifference over their frustrations.

It turns out that governments with less than 50% of the popular vote are nothing new in Canada. But more often they are majority governments as opposed to the just-elected minority government:

Not since the Progressive Conservatives of Brian Mulroney in 1984 has a federal party won an actual majority of the popular vote in Canada. It received 50.03 per cent of the popular vote en route to the largest ever majority in the House of Commons (211 seats out of 282). From 1993 to 2003, Jean Chrétien led the Liberals to three straight majorities, none of them with higher than 42 per cent of the popular vote.

Since the turn of the century, neither of the two latest majority governments (Harper’s Conservatives in 2011 and Trudeau’s Liberals in 2015) even cracked the 40-per-cent mark.

Given the current fragmentation of the electorate and the rise of smaller parties—about a third of Canadians are projected to vote for another party than the Liberals or Conservatives—it is increasingly difficult to imagine any party of whichever colour win more than half the votes in any given general election.

Well, now I know more than I used to know about Canadian politics, which apparently have become more and more convoluted lately.

Trump, Mexico, and the Wall

The New Neo Posted on by

The title of this CNN story got me curious enough to click on it: “Why some say Mexico already built Trump’s wall — and paid for it.”

Well, not exactly. And certainly not in the sense of the actual physical wall that was blocked by Congress but which is nevertheless being built, and for which Americans are paying.

But here’s what the article has to say:

…[C]ritics of President Andres Manuel López Obrador have been making [the following argument] for months.

Mexico, they argue, actually built US President Donald Trump’s border wall after all — not with concrete or bricks or steel, but with thousands of federal forces like this camouflage-clad commander and the troops following his orders.
And Mexico, they argue, is paying for it.

That explains how an article with a headline like that managed to sneak through CNN – it’s a criticism of Trump, after all, as delivered by Mexican critics of Mexico’s president for cooperating with him.

More:

But experts note that Mexico’s massive deployment of National Guard troops over the past few months has played a major role in blocking migrants from reaching the US border in the first place. It’s a point Trump himself has made at several recent events — a dramatic change in tone from his sharp criticisms of Mexico earlier this year.

“I would like to thank President López Obrador of Mexico for the great cooperation we are receiving, and for right now putting 27,000 troops on our southern border,” Trump told the United Nations General Assembly last month. “Mexico is showing us great respect, and I respect them in return.”

Fancy that – Trump changes tone in response to a change of policy from Mexico, which in turn is a response to his dealings with them. Sounds like win/win at the moment to me.

The elite war on democracy

The New Neo Posted on by

Often there seem to be international trends in response to historical forces, trends that then create their own historical forces. The age of 20th Century dictators, for example. Later, the resurgence of conservatism in Reagan and Thatcher. Then, a reaction by the left. And now we have the hand of elites clamping down on the unwashed populaces who would reduce their power.

In the US, it’s evidenced by the no-hold-barred fight to destroy Trump. In western Europe, there’s the EU against the people of many countries, in particular the UK’s Brexit movement. And in Israel there’s the prosecution of Netanyahu, which Caroline Glick describes this way:

On the one hand we have a democratically elected leader. On the other hand, we have unelected state prosecutors who wish to oust him from power by indicting him.

For nearly a year, Israeli politics have been in a state of chaos because of the criminal probes. The probes played a central role in the April Knesset elections and arguably were the primary reason that Netanyahu failed to form a coalition despite his electoral victory. Today the probes and Mandelblit’s deliberations are the primary reason that no one can form a government in the wake of last month’s repeat elections…

If Israel’s Attorney General relies on these probes as a means to end Netanyahu’s career, he will do far more than overthrow a political leader. He will embrace a legal doctrine that rejects the very essence of democracy.

This truth has been largely ignored in both the popular and the legal discourse regarding the Netanyahu investigations. It was only sounded in a significant way during the final half hour of Netanyahu’s four-day, 15-hour a day hearing two weeks ago.

During the final half hour of Netanyahu’s hearing, Mandelblit approved his attorneys’ request to permit two senior American jurists – legendary litigator Nathan Lewin and Professor Avi Bell from University of San Diego and Bar Ilan University law schools address him. The two presented the main points raised in a brief they authored with their colleagues Prof. Alan Dershowitz and attorneys Richard Heideman and Joseph Tipograph…

The American lawyers did not address the specific details of the probes against Netanyahu either in their oral or written arguments. Their brief focuses solely on the question at the heart of the two main investigations: Is it permissible to define the provision of positive news coverage to a politician by a news organization as a form of bribery?

Their answer is an unequivocal no. The American jurists warned that if Mandelblit chooses to bow to the position of his prosecutors and accepts that it is permissible to define the provision of positive coverage to a politician by a media organization as bribery, the Attorney General will bring about Israel’s legal isolation throughout the free world.

I note several things, one of which is the participation of Alan Dershowitz, who seems to be fighting this fight on several fronts. Another is the more general idea that one of the ways that the elites are fighting back is through lawfare (something we already know) but in particular through the redefinition of politics as a form of corruption. For those of whom they approve, no act is bad enough to prosecute, but for those they wish to remove, actions that would never have previously been defined as corrupt are now defined that way and the legal system is the means to accomplish their aims.

This parallels the manner in which the legal system manned by liberal judges has been used to circumvent the people’s reluctance or slowness on certain issues in the recent past. One was abortion, of course. Another was gay marriage. State-by-state solutions and decisions were not allowed, and new constitutional rights were created by liberal justices impatient with the pace of change. The time-tested process of using amendments to the Constitution to effect change is considered too tedious and democratic as well.

Politicians and lying – and Alinsky revisited

The New Neo Posted on by

In a recent thread I mentioned that Beto O’Rourke lied about how leftist he was when he was running against Cruz for the Senate, and that he’d been following the principle “Lie until you get in power, and then do what you want.”

Here’s a response from commenter “OBloodyHell”:

Isn’t this true of most politicians? Some more, some less, but I’d say one of the more significant things about Trump is that he has at least attempted to do much of what he claimed before being elected. He’s been stopped more often than not, and yes, in some cases, I’d suspect he fully expected he’d be stopped… but he tried, and that’s a lot more than most of those bastards ever do…

I’m in agreement about Trump keeping his word. Sometimes slowly (as with the Wall) and not in every detail (Mexico isn’t paying for it). But more than most or maybe than any politicians in recent memory.

But what I want to write about now is the entire concept of politicians and lies. While it is true, as OBloodyHell writes, that most politicians lie, I submit that until recently they haven’t tended to lie about their most fundamental political agendas.

Yes, there’s been corruption and graft. And yes, there are philanderers such as Bill Clinton who lie about sexual matters. And they don’t always follow through with promises. Or they change their minds (for real) while in office. Or other pressures arise, as with George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips” or the changes that 9/11 wrought in his son George W. Bush when he was president

But Barack Obama was the first president I can recall who lied in a fundamental way about who he was and what he intended to do politically. And when he didn’t literally lie, he used generalities such as “hope and change” to mask what he intended, which was to be far more leftist than he let on.

Obama also lied very directly and purposefully – for example,about the specific issue of gay marriage, which he initially pretended to be against. I can sum it all up by saying that Obama was the the first Alinskyite president. And he showed the way for the Big Lie and how it could succeed in America.

Now it seems the Overton Window has shifted enough that we see a few people in politics on the left such as AOC, who don’t seem to lie that much about their leftist intentions (unless, of course, she has even worse planned than she’s already told us, which is certainly possible). Not that they wouldn’t lie if and when they feel the need to do so. But they don’t seem to see as much need right now to hide their fundamental leftism. In that sense, Obama was a transitional figure.

I mentioned Alinsky, who was central rather than tangential to Obama’s approach. It occurs to me that we could use a little review on that, because it still seems very relevant. The following is from a piece I wrote in 2014, which in turn was based on a David Horowitz article from 2009. These are a series of quotes from Horowitz:

The Alinsky radical has a single principle – to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots. What this amounts to in practice is a political nihilism – a destructive assault on the established order in the name of the “people” …the goal is power for the political vanguard who get to feel good about themselves in the process.

The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words the cause – whether inner city blacks or women – is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution.

Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is resources and power.

Unlike the Communists who identified their goal as a Soviet state – and thereby generated opposition to their schemes – Alinsky and his followers organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve – socialism, communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future, they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system. By refusing to commit to principles or to identify their goal, they have been able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the left who were previously divided by disagreements over means and ends.

After Obama became a U.S. Senator, his wife, Michelle, told a reporter, “Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change.”

Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy – an impossible dream – the radical’s only real world efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the society he lives in. He is a nihilist…I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America and why they would want to destroy a society that compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open, and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is the envy of the world. The answer to this question is that radicals are not comparing America to other real world societies. They are comparing America to the heaven on earth – the kingdom of social justice and freedom – they think they are building.

Conservatives think of war as a metaphor when applied to politics. For radicals, the war is real. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and “Islamophobes.” It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not (“liberals” for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy.

The most basic principle of Alinsky’s advice to radicals is to lie to their opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals.

Alinsky’s advice can be summed up in the following way. Even though you are at war with the system, don’t confront it as an opposing army; join it and undermine it as a fifth column from within. To achieve this infiltration you must work inside the system for the time being. Alinsky spells out exactly what this means: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people.” In other words, it is first necessary to sell the people on change itself, the “audacity of hope,” and “yes we can.” You do this by proposing moderate changes which open the door to your radical agendas

No matter what Alinsky radicals say publicly or how moderate they appear, they are at war. This provides them with a great tactical advantage since other actors in the political arena are not at war.

There is no real parallelism in the war which radicals have declared. One side is fighting with a no-holds- barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism. This is the Achilles’ heel of democracies and all radical spears are aimed in its direction.

What makes radical politics a war is the existence of an enemy who must be eliminated. For Alinsky radicals, that enemy is the “Haves,” who “oppress” and rule the “Have-Nots.”

Lenin once said that the purpose of a political argument is not to refute your opponent “but to wipe him from the face of the earth.” The mission of Alinsky radicals is a mission of destruction.

In contrast to liberals, who in Alinsky’s eyes are constantly tripping over their principles, the rule for radicals is that the ends justify the means. This was true for the Jacobins, for the Communists, for the fascists and now for the post-Communist left. This is not because radicals begin by being unethical people. On the contrary, their passion for a future that is ethically perfect is what drives their political agendas and causes many to mistake them for idealists. But the very nature of this future – a world without poverty, without war, without racism, and without “sexism” – is so desirable, so noble, so perfect in contrast to everything that exists as to justify any and every means to achieve it.

Writes Alinsky: “The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem.” In other words, Alinsky’s radical is not going to worry about the legality or morality of his actions, only their practical effects. If they advance the cause they are justified. “He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

The religious voter and Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Beto O’Rourke got a lot of attention when he suggested that churches opposing gay marriage should lose tax-exempt status:

“There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone … that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.” O’Rourke told a cheering audience. “And so as president, we are going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

The most depressing thing isn’t that Beto, the wannabe dictator (who will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020, but who is considered a bona fide candidate) said such a thing, it’s that he said it in front of a “cheering audience.”

And in a related depressing thought, reflect that this guy came close to becoming the senator from Texas in 2016. Of course, he wasn’t saying this sort of thing back then. But doesn’t that make it worse? Lie until you get in power, and then do what you want.

And would he accomplish this by executive order? Perhaps, according to the author of this article, Rod Dreher. Maybe the only thing protecting us from tyranny, in the end, is convention and public intolerance of it, which is fast waning:

There is no reason that the IRS in a Democratic administration could not do that to churches and religious institutions that discriminated against LGBTs. No reason. It’s entirely a matter of executive will…

To be clear, we don’t know how all the Democrat candidates would come down on removing tax-exempt status from dissenting churches and religious organizations. They must be asked, and asked again until we get a clear answer. Personally, though, I have no doubt at all that every single one of them would do this if they thought it wouldn’t cost them too much politically. Christians need to understand that as America secularizes, and as those who still call themselves Christian accept anti-biblical views on LGBT, it will increasingly become possible for a future president to impose this punishment on churches and religious organizations without paying a significant political price.

In the comments section to that Dreher piece, there is a large number of Christain believers saying how much they hate Trump, and that maybe they’ll sit this one out. It’s odd to me under the circumstance the article states. They sound like NeverTrumpers whose main objection seems to be that Trump is crass.

This is typical, for example:

I despise Trump — who he is, how he carries himself and his haphazard leadership. He has done real, lasting damage to this country.

And then someone else asks:

Could I get an example of that, please? I see only slight variations on that claim regularly, but I honestly can’t see what it is people are talking about.

Yes, I mean this in earnest, not as a talking point or some kind of “gotcha” or other political point. I want to understand what you are talking about.

No answer.

Oh, and another depressing thing. A lot of people there are saying “What difference does it make, because I don’t think churches should be tax-exempt anyway.” But that’s a very different issue. One can debate that question, but it has little to do with what Beto said. There is a world of difference between saying that all churches (including mosques, temples, etc.) should not be tax-exempt and saying this or that particular church (or mosque or temple, perhaps) – should lose its tax-exempt status because it is against gay marriage. Isn’t the different obvious?

Another comment:

Sorry, I still cannot vote for Trump. As it stands, I will either leave that box on the ballot blank, or vote third party…I’m no great fan of Pence, either, but as my husband remarked this morning, a rabid gerbil would make a better president than Trump. Trump has made a shambles of the Executive branch and made us a laughingstock among people of good will (not simply the worst of the EU and other Western governments), and is helping to enable the craziness of the Democratic platform. Bill Clinton’s actions that led to his impeachment are completely dwarfed by Trump’s immorality, ineptitude and the bloviating and lies that emanate from his narcissism. Hard times are coming to people of faith no matter who is elected.

The comment thread is loaded with similar general put-downs, seemingly based on some sort of feeling of revulsion towards Trump on a style and personality level.

An answer in the same comments thread:

Narcissism, I’ll definitely grant you… though how that differentiates him from any of the other politicians continues to elude me, save that he doesn’t try to hide it.

Immorality, ditto.

Bloviating, lies… ditto, though on this one, I think he’s a noticeably lesser offender than most in Washington, actually (yes, I’m serious – lying regularly and straight to your face seems to be the basic entry requirement for politicians these days).

And ineptitude… OK, I literally don’t understand this claim from people. Look critically and unemotionally at the guy’s accomplishments, and tell me that “inept”. Not “immoral” or “unethical”, we covered that in the previous points.

Trump has moved the ball on things conservatives have claimed to want for decades that no one else did anything about, and you’re willing to throw that away because he’s not willing to hide the “making of the sausage.”from your view? And at the same time complain about “lying”?

Forget about the man – I wouldn’t want to hang out with him, either. Look at what he’s DOING. Getting the ARABS to work with the Israelis? Getting more concessions from the NorKs than all before him put together? EVERYTHING on the economic front? (Actually go LOOK at the numbers – don’t depend on ANYONE in the media to give the proper feeling about it – it’s everything EVERYONE claims to want, but no one will mention it. Higher income for the lower 80% of households, lower income for the top 20%, literally the best employment numbers for minorities ever recorded, etc, etc.)

But you don’t like his mannerisms? They’re “icky” or something, so let’s throw all of that away? REALLY?

Or am I missing some complaint that doesn’t boil down to “he’s as icky as the other politicians, just more open about it”?

That seems to sum it up to me. Most of the NeverTrumpers are basically saying a combination of “Trump is icky” and “He has cooties.” They don’t want to get his ickiness and his cooties on themselves.

As expected, Parliament votes to delay Brexit

The New Neo Posted on by

The latest:

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a major setback on Saturday as the country’s parliament voted to delay the Brexit ahead of the October 31 deadline. Lawmakers voted by 322 to 306 in favor of an amendment that obliges the British government to request an extension from Brussels .

Prime Minister Johnson remained defiant in face of the vote, vowing to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union when the deadline expire on October 31. “I will not negotiate a delay with the EU and neither does the law compel me to do so,” Johnson told the House.

This is more of the same sort of maneuvering we’ve seen before. The only difference is that October 31 is getting very close.

Also predictable: leftist Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says this means there should be a new referendum on Brexit. Fancy that. And Nigel Farage says it means that there should be a new parliamentary election.

They represent the pro-EU and pro-Brexit poles of British opinion. The first group has a stranglehold on Parliament at the moment, even though the people appear to favor Brexit. That’s why the Remainers are determined to avoid a general election which they think they will lose.