Hannibal Bateman states the following about documents leaked concerning George Soros' Open Society Foundation:
"(S)triking are the documents' stark discussion of demographic realities... In addition to funding local NAACP and Mexican American groups throughout states such as North Carolina and Texas. Such demographic real talk is spoken of in plain language in a way that it never is in Conservatism Inc. For instance, look at the following (emphasis mine):
For much of the past decade, North Carolina has been among the nation’s fastest growing states for three primary reasons: 1) it has a pleasant quality of life, with decent weather and a lower cost of living than the Boston to Washington, DC urban corridor; 2) the employment situation is strong and diversified, with its higher education institutions creating a high tech mecca, principally in the Research-Triangle area of Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, that draws many well educated northerners to the state, and the Charlotte area’s rise to be the nation’s second largest banking center after NYC; and 3) the free trade accelerated decline of its historic industries: textiles, furniture, and tobacco has led to new low-wage economies of service, construction, and agribusiness industries that have made the state a magnet for immigrants from Mexico and Central America
Because of these factors, North Carolina now has roughly nine million residents, slightly larger than the population of New York City, making it the third most populous southern state (after Texas and Florida). The state is now the nation’s tenth most populous and continues to grow. It is changing rapidly, with one third of the population now people of color and a tri-racial population dynamic – African-American, Latino, and white –replacing the Black/white dominance of old. North Carolina through the 1990s had the fastest growing immigrant population and in the 2000s had the fastest growing Latino population. This is no Mayberry (and taking TV fiction for what it is, the state likely never was Mayberry).
When Allen Johnson published his attempt at imposing speech codes earlier this week, there was one key topic that he did not discuss-- the fact that influential forces within contemporary Judaism have helped take away religious liberty from orthodox Christians with their relentless pursuit of the LGBT agenda. This had been the main motivator of our entire initial discussion here-- but magically, Johnson overlooked that part.
The democratic socialist left, according to World Magazine, is openly celebratory that LGBT prerogatives now supersede religious liberty.
The type of political hit job seen in Sunday's column is part of the reason some conservatives and Republicans prefer to refrain from communicating with the News and Record.
But it turns out that some prominent voices within American Judaism are now reconsidering the damage that has been done on matters related to religious liberty.
From Mosaic Magazine-- a national Jewish publication-- a couple of important articles discuss the issue. Their writers seem very concerned:
(H)ere is where the danger to the freedom of Jews to be Jews becomes painfully manifest. Although the secularizing and leveling fires of today’s activists are aimed mainly at Christians, the precedents that are being set would apply no less to Jewish day schools, colleges, and synagogues as well as to kosher restaurants and community centers. In the name of non-discrimination, zealots could make it increasingly difficult for religious Jews to educate their children as they see fit or possibly even cause them to lose the right to do so...
(L)egislation at the state or federal level would affect Jewish educational institutions that uphold traditional teachings about marriage... Jewish religious institutions could also find it necessary to sue just to protect their right to teach the biblical understanding of sex and sexuality. The same logic would apply elsewhere as well: for example, to a law penalizing the use of the “wrong” sex pronoun about someone claiming to be transgender, or compelling yeshivas or other religious schools, in the name of non-discrimination law, to hire openly gay teachers on pain of losing their tax exemption...
Catholic charities in Boston no longer offer adoption services because the state insists they do so in a manner that violates Catholic doctrine. That would apply to Orthodox agencies, too. Bans on kosher slaughter and circumcision, long on the to-do list of activists, might not be far behind. Nor might basic internal arrangements of traditional Jewish communities and religious institutions necessarily escape scrutiny: one can imagine, for instance, a situation in which a transgender Jewish man might sue for access to a mikveh designated for use by women.
Traditional Judaism, after all, depends entirely on discriminating in the original sense of distinguishing: between holy and profane, Sabbath and weekday, man and woman, Jews and others. Such discriminations cannot be reworked without transforming classical Judaism into something unrecognizable to many Jews. Will Jewish institutions be able to withstand today’s freewheeling assault on religious liberty? Or will the enforcers of state-mandated “non-discrimination” not rest easy until they complete their Orwellian campaign of positive discrimination against every last dissenter from the progressive line?...
What goes for the freedom of association goes also for the freedom of expression and of religion: thanks to today’s “anti-discrimination” crusade, they, too, are slipping away. Already in his 1962 lecture, “Why We Remain Jews,” from which I have been quoting, Leo Strauss warned against efforts to end “discrimination,” period. This enterprise, he predicted, would kill liberalism. “The prohibition against every ‘discrimination,’” he said, “would mean the abolition of the private sphere, the denial of the difference between the state and society, in a word, the destruction of liberal society.” (Sensitive to the newly invidious sense of the term “discrimination,” Strauss insisted on using it only with quotation marks. “I would not use it of my own free will.”) Absent that private sphere, he concluded, Jews would no longer be free to be Jews in America.
Today’s post-Christian, anti-Christian bigots have set themselves against the “large and liberal policy” that to George Washington also left Jews free to be Jews, to associate with whom they chose, and to live by the teachings and practices of their tradition: liberties that, along with legal equality, became enshrined as of natural right in the American Constitution. One would hope that this same large and liberal policy lies so deep in the American DNA that the national immune system will finally respond in time to repulse the latest attack on it. Doing so, however, will entail recovering both specific laws and an idea of justice based upon treating Americans as individuals who “all possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship”—that is, upon the ideal of live and let live.
In today’s fevered political climate, one cannot help wondering how much of the felt national anger might be traceable to the juridically abetted effort to force all Americans onto a uniform cultural page. If that is the case, restoring a healthier understanding of liberty would be good not only for traditional Jews and Christians but for all Americans. In furthering that restorative effort, American Jews have a collective interest, a historical responsibility, and a role to play.
(One) factor favoring anti-discrimination laws over religious liberty is that the left, which traditionally fought for both religious liberty and non-discrimination, has made a virtual religion out of the latter while largely abandoning traditional religion. The left also once enjoyed a substantial religious base; today it has become dominated by secularists who simply fail to understand the perspective of religious traditionalists.
Many secularists see adherence to longstanding moral teachings as compelling evidence of irrational animus...
(T)he left is still mostly at peace with the American Jewish community because the latter is predominantly irreligious, socially liberal, and politically progressive. A few decades from now, the majority of affiliated Jews may well be predominantly religious, socially conservative, and a significant “reactionary” force in politics, especially in New York where Ḥaredim are concentrated. This is unlikely to occur without a significant rise in anti-Jewish sentiment on the left, bringing with it potentially dire consequences for the community’s religious liberty. Nor, we can predict, is this anti-Jewish sentiment likely to be limited to Ḥaredim.
I also find interesting some discussions regarding anti-Semitism we have seen recently. It turns out that Barry Farber-- a Jewish conservative who was raised in Greensboro-- also has made some accusations of anti-Semitism. But in Farber's case, the accusations were against Debbie Wasserman Shultz and the Democratic National Committee for rigging the race for the Democratic presidential nomination against Bernie Sanders' bid in order to help Hillary Clinton.
The progressive left, of course, also could be accused of anti-Semitism because of its embrace of the Palestinian cause at the expense of the state of Israel.
Approximately 25 years ago, during 1991, I was in Washington, D.C. to attend a medical conference on the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was a terrible bill, pushed by Bob Dole and signed into law by Bush I, that would have a profound impact on my medical specialty.
As I walked through the lobby of my hotel, a large screen television was airing the McLaughlin Group. A large group of hotel residents and visitors gathered around the television because sparks were flying. The panel was discussing the Rodney King/ police situation in Los Angeles; and it quickly degenerated into a shouting match. The dopey liberals on the panel were absolutely furious that the conservatives, including Fred Barnes, were being openly critical of the rioters in L.A.. Eleanor Clift nearly had a stroke.
It seems that little has changed over the past quarter century.
I really enjoyed the McLaughlin Group. One of the contributions of this particular program was that it gave a prominent paleoconservative-- Pat Buchanan-- a place at the table. With McLaughlin's passing, Tom Piatak explains the significance:
Paleoconservatives have a special reason to be grateful to John McLaughlin. For most of the show's history, Pat Buchanan occupied the front chair on the viewer's right. McLaughlin always remained loyal to his friend from the Nixon White House, and because of John McLaughlin, Buchanan was always assured of a place to present his views on television, despite the concerted efforts by neocons and other leftists to silence Buchanan and those who think like him. John McLaughlin will be missed.
Under the Bush regime, which lasted nearly thirty years, paleoconservatives were essentially banished from positions of influence within the Republican Party, and from the prevailing conservative movement itself.
With the emergence of Donald Trump, some "paleocon" issues like trade and immigration are now being placed at a much higher level of importance.
The news today that Trump has appointed Breitbart's Steven K. Bannon to lead his campaign provides yet another paleoconservative twist. I have been listening to Bannon for quite some time on Sirius XM during my morning commute. He has used Breitbart to promote Trump's candidacy, and is a passionate fighter for the conservative cause. He is a former naval officer who was born into a working class family; and has obvious sympathies with this group of folks.
Trump's nomination has driven certain NeverTrumpers toward Gary Johnson and Hillary Clinton. This proves these folks were never really social conservatives. Or alternatively, it demonstrates they were always most committed to the donor class.
Another conservative option was always open to the NeverTrump crowd-- the Constitution Party nominee-- but these folks would not even consider it. Dan Phillips provides a very cogent explanation:
One reason is the snob factor. Some anti-Trumpism is motivated by what I have called sophistication signaling. Trump can be bombastic and crass at times and is supported by a lot of people that the sophisticated set thinks are yokels, so their anti-Trumpism is in part a way to signal that they are oh so serious and would never sully their hands by supporting an uncouth “demagogue” like Trump, although I suspect that separating themselves from all his yahoo supporters, rather than Trump’s demeanor, is really what motivates them.
Likewise, I suspect that snobbery is one thing that keeps certain NeverTrumpers from considering the CP nominee. Darrell Castle is a lawyer and a long time CP activist, and by all accounts a decent fellow, but he is not a “serious” candidate and his party is still pretty obscure and “fringy,” and I say this as someone who is sympathetic to the CP, despite clearly being the most prominent “more” conservative party at the national level. This is likely why some NeverTrumpers are considering the Libertarian Party (LP) ticket of Johnson and Weld, even though neither of those men come anywhere close to passing a conservative purity test. But both are former governors and serious and respectable and not fringy and thus won’t taint the sophistication credentials of NeverTrumpers who endorse them.
But more than sophistication signaling, what motivates NeverTrumpers refusal to endorse Castle is the issues differences they have with the CP. The CP is an unambiguously constitutionalist party and, broadly speaking, a “more” conservative by degree party, but it is also a paleoconservative party, meaning it is restrictionist on immigration, opposed to globalist trade deals and non-interventionist on foreign policy.
NeverTrump may pretend their resistance is about conservative purity, but what it is really about is keeping conservatism as ideological cover for globalism – relatively open borders, free trade and foreign policy interventionism. Anyone familiar with this dynamic and the nature of the CP understood why the NeverTrumpers weren’t rushing to do the easy and sensible thing and endorse Darrell Castle, but some have done us the favor of making it clear. A good little globalist can’t tolerate any of that “retrograde mercantilism” or “foreign policy isolationism” no matter how solid the party or the candidate might be on such trivial matters as the Second Amendment and saving babies...
(Their) alleged conservatism is nothing more than an ideological apologia for the status quo globalism that just so happens to enrich the donor class fat cats who fund your movement and the Republican Party but leaves the Middle Americans who actually vote for Republicans cycle after cycle in the lurch. The globalist forces that you are giving ideological cover to are responsible for the decline of the country you are supposed to be trying to conserve.
Neither Bannon nor Trump are perfect. McLaughlin was not either. But the next eleven weeks are going to be an interesting ride.
Dr. Gerard Gianoli is an ENT specialist with subspecialization in the field of neurotology-- a field that deals with balance problems. He writes the following regarding Hillary Clinton's health difficulties:
What do we know about Mrs. Clinton’s health? We know that she has suffered two deep vein thromboses and an episode of cerebral venous thrombosis. Blood spontaneously clotting within one’s veins on three separate occasions is not a good thing. In fact, it is life-threatening. This tells us that she has a hypercoagulable state requiring the use of Coumadin (a “blood thinner”) for the rest of her life to try to prevent this from happening again. While Coumadin may prevent future blood clots, it can also lead to life-threatening hemorrhage if she has any future trauma.
We also know that she suffered a concussion and, according to her husband, she took 6 months to recover. How do we know she recovered? If she was a high school athlete, she would have had mandatory neuropsychological testing before being allowed to participate in sports again. Given that being the leader of the free world is more important than playing goalie for the local high school, why is the mainstream media not demanding to see Mrs. Clinton’s post-concussion testing?
We also know from the Clinton camp that Mrs. Clinton has had a right transverse venous sinus thrombosis. This has been described as a blood clot in her brain, but that is not accurate. More specifically, it is a blood clot that formed in one of the two major veins that drain blood from the brain. Coumadin was prescribed, not to dissolve the clot (it won’t), but to prevent the clot from extending to the other transverse venous sinus, which could result in death. However, the right transverse sinus clot by itself will cause longstanding consequences. Since there are only two veins draining blood from the brain, the blockage of one results in increased intracranial pressure, which will remain a lifelong problem for such patients.
What are the symptoms of increased intracranial pressure? The most common are headaches, visual problems, and dizziness/balance problems. We know that Ms. Clinton has had all three of these. Less commonly known are “brain fog,” problems with concentration, and short-term memory problems. Sounds familiar?...
We... know from the leaked DNC emails that some of the major media outlets were in collusion with the Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party. Could this be why they have not pursued the issues of Mrs. Clinton’s health? This is an important issue to be explored for any candidate of any political party.
As a concerned American, I ask the media: Would you please do your job?
I was a bit surprised to learn this afternoon about Allen Johnson's column.
It is not worth trying to rebut every single point. But a few observations are in order.
First, Johnson fails to point out that the blog post I had authored a couple of weeks ago was centered on observations contained in an article written by Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew; and secondarily on an excerpt from Wikipedia. The post has been shared on social media literally hundreds of times; and has attracted at least 324 "likes". It is still being passed around.
Second, Johnson does not really attempt to refute the statements contained in the post. He does not do this because they were essentially accurate as applied to the broad group I was discussing. Instead, he merely claims I should not have made these statements. Mr. Johnson has a history of attempting to hold people to speech codes. In the past, these attempts have often been directed toward elected officials and other public figures.
It is always good to have thought police to keep us in line.
My third point, however, is the most important. I was essentially discussing worldviews-- which are very real. My contention is that certain worldviews are quite destructive to the common good. But they also can be antithetical to the flourishing of individual men, women and children. That is essentially what we have been seeing in our society over the last several decades, and it has been intensifying over the last eight years. The larger body of my work blogging over the last dozen years or so is replete with discussions of these phenomena.
The worldview Mr. Johnson himself espouses is quite similar to that which I was describing in my blog post; and it has proved to be extremely destructive-- even to the point that it is now snuffing out the religious liberty of orthodox Christians.
Josh Stein, if elected, will be a truly awful State Attorney General-- just like Roy Cooper. And that is not because he is Jewish. (In fact, Ben Shapiro would dispute the premise that Stein is truly Jewish). Instead, he would likely be awful because his public record suggests that he embraces the worldview I had described.
Scott Richert, on Republican "pro-life" politics:
For four decades now, pro-life voters have been wedded to the national Republican Party by the vows of politicians whose actions, upon election, have proved that they had no intention ever of fulfilling them. Every two or four or six years, they would swear to defend the lives of the unborn, and then, after taking the oath of office once again, find that other matters took precedence...
The pro-life movement now finds itself back in the last days of 1989, when the excitement that summer in the wake of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services turned to dismay after the case of Turnock v. Ragsdale was unexpectedly settled out of court under pressure from the first Bush administration, which did not want to risk the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. The settlement involved the designation in Illinois law of abortuaries as a new type of “lightly regulated” ambulatory surgical center that did not have to meet the standards of safety and hygiene of the fully regulated ones. The Illinois example quickly became the standard across the country; it was only in recent years that the tide had once again turned.
The settling of Turnock bought the Bush administration enough time to get the “stealth justice” David Souter onto the bench before the next major case—Justice Kennedy’s magnum opus, Casey—would be heard by the Court. And now Kennedy’s latest triumph, the absurdly named Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, joins Roe and Casey as the third jewel in the triple crown of Republican-appointed abortion jurisprudence.
Whatever else he may be, Donald J. Trump is hardly the proximate threat to America that progressive Americans, including those who boss the Republican Party, see in him. The immediate danger to constitutional government and a free society is rather the individualism Tocqueville said originated with democracy, and the centralization of government and society he thought democratic peoples desire. These are the things that imperil the spirit of liberty Santayana believed made England and America unique in the history of the world.
The story is not (as it is usually reported) that, in 2011, 86 percent of Muslims in the United States said that such violence was “never” or “rarely” justified “in order to defend Islam from its enemies.” It’s that 13 percent believe that it is “often,” “sometimes,” or “rarely” justified, and another 6 percent “don’t know” or refuse to answer. The difference between “rarely” and “never” is infinite, and it is safe to assume that anyone who refuses to answer the question or claims not to know what he thinks is unlikely, should the time ever come when he must make a stand, to fall into the “never” camp.
In other words, as many as one in five Muslims in America believes that “violence against civilian targets” in the name of Islam can be justified; they simply disagree on how often it may be. That’s one member of an average-sized Muslim family in the United States, or as many as 180 worshipers when the Rockford mosque is full.
Seen in this light, Donald Trump’s call for a moratorium on Islamic immigration “until we know what’s going on” is both humane and woefully inadequate to the challenge we face. Humane, because it is far better to deny people entrance to our country than to invite them here, only to treat them with suspicion and restrict their civil liberties, as politicians on both the left and the right have suggested we should do. And woefully inadequate, because the threat we face isn’t just coming across our borders right now; it’s already here, as surely as it is in the Muslim communities of London and Paris and Brussels.
The conservative nature of Islamic communities means that it is highly unlikely that such communities will “police themselves” in the sense of turning potential terrorists in to federal law enforcement before they have committed any crime. That’s simply not the way that traditional communities—Muslim or otherwise—work.
Those who rule America believe the American people should not exist, but rather merge into a global aggregate of workers and consumers who act effectually only as raw material for markets and bureaucracies. That belief is hardly arbitrary, since present-day trends and policies promote the result by disrupting local and customary social order. Marriage and family have lost definition. Children are brought up by peer groups, social media, pop culture, and professional custodians. Education is either vocational or propagandistic, and it is often disconnected from tradition and reality. Employment is precarious, and employers increasingly totalitarian. And the electronic media pervade the whole of life, replacing stable face-to-face relationships with networks of shifting connections and images...
A ruling class that doesn’t like its own people naturally calls forth opposition. In America that opposition includes religious believers, workers who have lost out to foreign or immigrant competition, Middle Americans who have noticed that established powers are not on their side, men who are tired of insults and nagging, parents who are worried about the brainwashing of their children, and ordinary people who don’t like cranks who insist on demonizing normal habits, attitudes, and arrangements.
In theory, the opposition should also include most of the new order’s prize beneficiaries—women, blacks, young people—for whom the disintegration of local social connections and normal paths of life has been far from helpful. In fact, however, it doesn’t: Appeals to fear and resentment and promises of protection and support without personal obligation have been too effective...
(A) ruling class that bases its right to rule on freedom and equality is going to have difficulties as inequality continues to grow, controls over life and thought become ever more burdensome and annoying, and appeals to the “people’s will” as the basis of government become increasingly less believable...
(P)olitical correctness is both integral to the progressive project of social reconstruction and completely at odds with natural ways of life and thought.
(This) brings me to the Orlando tragedy and all the lies that have followed. My first question—similar to the one I posed after the Boston Marathon bombing—is, what the hell was this family of Afghan con men doing in this country anyway? Why was the father given TV time to spout lies? Why are we letting in Chechens, Somalis, Afghanis, Nigerians, and Eritreans rather than the millions of Europeans I know who are dying to immigrate to the good ole U.S. of A.?
The media/left complex has been very eager to create an impression that Raleigh Republicans are underfunding public education and shortchanging teachers' pay.
In fact, the Republicans have increased these items to a greater extent than the Democrats who preceded them in the majority. Regardless of however a limited government conservative might view that reality, it is nevertheless true.
I have received two mail pieces from Trudy Wade taking credit for increasing these items. Unfortunately, this appears fairly defensive, and is quite unlikely to arouse warm feelings of support from voters who are fiscally conservative.
Given the fact that the federal courts have dispensed of much of the Republican General Assembly's handiwork, the achievements Senator Wade can claim this election season are markedly reduced. For those of us who are not awestruck with educational funding, perhaps a real conservative issue might be emphasized.
The Daily Haymaker reports today that North Carolina's U.S. Senate race is rated as a "toss-up" by Real Clear Politics. He is averaging only 42.7% of the vote.
You can blame Senator Richard Burr, who has endorsed and fought for all of these leftist judges who have thrown our state into chaos. Who has pushed for increased spying on our cellphones and other personal devices. Who has derided attempts to fight ObamaCare and has aided and abetted increases in spending AND our federal debt. Yeah. BLAME HIM.
It is considered very weak for an incumbent to be polling at a mere 43 percent. Burr still might prevail-- especially if he is helped by the top of the ticket. But his prospects are not guaranteed.
Of course, Burr has given conservatives and Christians little reason to support him. While he would represent a marginal improvement over his opponent, it is difficult to find many people excited about this race. The GOP-e will argue that maintaining control of the Senate is critical, especially if Trump wins-- but in fact, this sorry Republican majority in the Senate has been an impediment to good governance.
The main reason to support Burr at this point is the prospect that he might help Trump pass the better parts of his agenda. But then again, even this is not guaranteed.