Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Archive for the 'Politics' Category

    Has Hillary Clinton Gone Full Cat-Lady?

    Posted by Trent Telenko on 26th August 2016 (All posts by )

    Hillary Clinton is famous for the term “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” to “otherize” the conservative movement.

    Yesterday she came out with the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy 2.0” — The Vast Vladimir Putin-led “Great Extreme Nationalist Conspiracy.”

    Pardon me but...What the H*ll?!?

    As Sundance over at The Last Refuge put it:

    Secretary Hillary Clinton, campaigning to become President of the United States, actually gave a public speech claiming that Vladimir Putin was using mind-control to manipulate nationalist inhabitants of planet earth in a grand conspiracy against her campaign.

    And if you don’t believe her, YOU are the conspiracy theorist.

    Think about that for a few minutes.

    Folks like Alex Jones at Infowars and Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart are delighted.  Hillary rewarded their troll-ish behavior with more eyes than they ever could have gotten themselves.

    The first rule of the Internet is Do Not Feed the Energy Creatures.  It lets folks like Joseph Watson at Infowars post videos like this —

    There is one more person that is thanking the All Mighty for Hillary’s speech…Donald Trump.

    While Hillary’s campaign staff may have panned the speech as a way to duck a debate with Trump by painting him as “an extremist,”  it feeds the revived and remade by the Alt-Right  meme of the CRAZY CAT LADY.

    The old CRAZY CAT LADY meme involved near senile old hags scaring small children at the edge of their picket fences.  This one has been around since Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.

    The Alt-Right CRAZY CAT LADY meme — which is borrowed from the pickup-artist/seduction  community — reshapes the old-hag meme to apply to college-graduate career women who have spend all their prime attractive years from 18 to 36 taking birth control and chasing bad-boy cads while leaving good but boring men behind.  Then discovering as they approach their ’40s there is no one out there for them to marry and settle down with, save for their cats.

    Part and parcel  of that Alt-Right CRAZY CAT LADY meme is advertising scientific studies about the fact that hormonal birth control makes women act and smell different — act less sexy — during the most fertile days of their monthly cycle.

    Making this study popular study is a huge indictment of feminism in general and first-generation feminists in particular.  It is intended as such.  Such offensive but hard-truth lines are intended as an opening move of a seduction routine for career women on the “cat lady track”.

    That Hillary as a “first generation feminist” is parroted by Milo Yiannopoulos in a Presidential-candidate address citing that birth-control study shows that the Alt-Right is living in Hillary’s head rent-free.

    It was Hillary’s Megyn Kelly moment.

    That Trump, who Hillary accuses of being Alt-Right, recognizes that point goes without saying.

    Trump is going to use this “Hillary the CRAZY CAT LADY” meme for all that is worth between now and election day.

    Posted in Elections, Politics, Trump | 15 Comments »

    Hillary Clinton’s Alinskyite Attacks on Pharma Companies

    Posted by Jonathan on 25th August 2016 (All posts by )

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” (Saul Alinsky)

    Hillary is clever to go after individual companies. If she attacked the pharma industry as a whole, it could unite politically in response and perhaps gain political support from other industries that would reasonably see themselves as similarly vulnerable. But individual companies have no defenses against this kind of attack. By singling out one victim she discourages other industry players from doing anything in response, because any company or industry group that responds risks being targeted in the future.

    She has done this kind of thing before. She will probably keep doing it because it’s politically effective. Her attack on Mylan destroyed a large amount of wealth, and probably not just for Mylan’s shareholders. Today Mylan’s CEO is groveling in the media. As with past political attacks by Hillary and others on vaccine manufacturers, yesterday’s attack on Mylan will discourage pharma companies from introducing valuable new products and will reduce the availability of current products. We will probably see more of this kind of extortionate behavior by the federal govt if she is elected, because that’s how the Clintons operate and because a Hillary administration would appoint more lefty judges and DOJ and regulatory officials who would go along with it.

    Posted in Big Government, Crony Capitalism, Economics & Finance, Health Care, Leftism, Markets and Trading, Politics | 26 Comments »

    Why does George Soros try to destabilize the West ?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on 23rd August 2016 (All posts by )

    George Soros is a Hungarian born billionaire who seems to be funding a lot of malicious mischief around the world. Why ?

    Soros was born in Hungary in 1930.

    That Wiki article is very favorable to Soros and does not mention a few things.

    There is considerable discussion of Soros’ role under the Nazis.

    It has been alleged that he was a collaborator. Apparently, he did admit doing some things that could be criticized although the role of a 14 year old is pretty weak.

    It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a — a very personal experience of evil.

    KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this [Christian] protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

    Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

    KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

    Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

    KROFT: I mean, that’s — that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

    Mr. SOROS: Not — not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t — you don’t see the connection. But it was — it created no — no problem at all.

    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    Mr. SOROS: No.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Anti-Americanism, Civil Society, Human Behavior, Politics | 27 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Trump, Academia, and Hyperbole

    Posted by Jonathan on 19th August 2016 (All posts by )

    Excerpt:

    As to the Article XII argument …. In a peer reviewed journal article, Professor Somin wrote: “[T]he Privileges and Immunities Clause requires states to treat migrants from other states on par with their own citizens, thereby facilitating interstate mobility.” Somin cites U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 4. See Ilya Somin, Book Review, 28 Const. Comment. 303, 305 & n.5 (2012) (reviewing Michael Greve, The Upside-Down Constitution (2012)). But that’s not right: Article IV, Section 4 is the Guarantee Clause, not the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Now just to be clear: my point isn’t that both Trump and Somin are equally dopes. Rather my point is that anyone can miscite the Constitution, and we should be loathe to call someone “profoundly ignorant” just because they cite to the wrong article or the wrong clause. Anyone can make a mistake.

    Read the whole thing.

    Jonathan adds: It’s not just academia. The media, and in my (and probably your) experience Trump opponents in private conversation, apply different and much harsher standards to Trump than they do to Hillary. One of the current memes is that Trump isn’t stable enough to have his finger on the nuclear button. Yet Hillary, whose gross negligence made her and our secrets available to hostile foreign powers, and who appears literally to have sold out her country in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, gets a pass.

    Posted in Academia, Law, Politics, Rhetoric, Trump | 20 Comments »

    An Important Point About the Election

    Posted by David Foster on 15th August 2016 (All posts by )

    Daniel Henninger, writing in the Wall Street Journal, points out one consequence of a Hillary Clinton presidency: the continuation and acceleration of the trends that are destroying American higher education.

    One mechanism of destruction is the use of federal enforcement agencies to further entrench political correctness. Expect a lot more Star Chamber proceedings and witch-burnings. Another mechanism is increased federal dollars pipelined into the education industry, eliminating any incentives for reform.

     

    (also posted it the members’ section at Ricochet)

    Posted in Academia, Education, Elections, Politics | 41 Comments »

    “A new governing aristocracy made public deception acceptable”

    Posted by Jonathan on 13th August 2016 (All posts by )

    Thoughts on the nexus between the growth of government and of an elite governing class, and the rise of flagrant, unaccountable, public lying by politicians and other officials who are members of that class:

    …This statistical fact is, however, also a good example how radically this new American “aristocracy” has changed America in recent decades. Even President Obama in his first election campaign, only eight years ago, still categorically rejected the label of being a “socialist” for fear of becoming unelectable. Only eight years later, Bernie Sanders, a declared Socialist would, likely, have become the elected Democratic presidential candidate, had the party leadership not undemocratically conspired against his election.
     
    [. . .]
     
    Many, maybe even most presidents before Clinton, of course, also have on occasion been less than truthful; but nobody, except of course Nixon (“I am not a crook”), has in recent history so blatantly lied to the American people as Bill Clinton and, yet, gotten away with it, in the process changing American politics for ever by demonstrating that the modern multimedia world practically always offers the opportunity to relativize the truth of the message (to quote Bill Clinton, “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”).
     
    The political “aristocracy” learned this lesson very quickly and, of course, nobody better than Hillary Clinton. She would never have dared to follow through with the absolute insane idea of establishing her own Internet server while serving as Secretary of State, had she not been convinced that she could manipulate the truth, should it be discovered. Piercing her words, as her husband had done so well during the Lewinsky Affair, she, indeed, has successfully avoided indictment by the Justice Department, even though a majority of Americans, likely, believe that she escaped because of special considerations by Obama’s Justice Department. Completely exposed in her deception by the FBI investigation, she, remarkably, still continues to lie in her statements to the public.

    Read the whole thing.

    Posted in Big Government, Civil Society, Culture, Current Events, Deep Thoughts, Media, Obama, Political Philosophy, Politics, Society, USA | 21 Comments »

    Contemplating Evita

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on 12th August 2016 (All posts by )

    … Or as I used to refer to Hillary as “Her Inevitableness.” This was back in that campaign season of 2008, when she and the Fresh Prince of Chicago were going toe to toe. I called that contest “Ebony vs Ovary” and regret that such a pithy phrase never caught on in the blogosphere.

    Anyway – bend over, for here she comes again, the woman whose main qualification for high office seems to have been in staying married to her horn-dog of a husband who coincidentally was the occupant of the White House three administrations ago. She does not appear to be particularly charming or charismatic, or to enjoy the company of other people, as her spouse did. She also doesn’t seem to have any facility for above-board political wheeling and dealing among parties or individuals of equal standing. She has, however, been very good at ruthlessly manipulating others from a position of strength, in the manner of a Mafia don. She has a long-standing reputation of treating no-name personnel who worked in the White House or the State Department – military, housekeeping staff, and members of the Secret Service – with rudeness and outright abuse. Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Conservatism, Current Events, Leftism, Politics, Predictions, The Press, Trump | 22 Comments »

    The forgotten history of Hillary Clinton

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on 29th July 2016 (All posts by )

    This was posted on facebook as a comment to a WSJ piece on her campaign strategy.

    Dick Morris, former political adviser to President Bill Clinton: If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five-minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background, beware as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone. I offer a few corrections:
    Bill says: “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”
    Facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in ‘Law School’ was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a ‘Federal Agent.’ She went to Court every day as part of a Law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

    Was this true ? Snopes has a sort of rebuttal.

    Hillary Rodham (as she was known then) wasn’t a lawyer then, either: She was a Yale law student, and like many of her politically-minded fellow law students who saw the latest “trial of the century” taking place just outside the main gate of their school, she took advantage of an opportunity to be involved in the case in a minor, peripheral way by organizing other students to help the American Civil Liberties Union monitor the trials for civil rights violations. Her tangential participation in the trial in no way helped “free” Black Panthers tried for the murder of Alex Rackley

    So the description credited to Morris is correct.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Biography, Current Events, Politics | 6 Comments »

    Gaslighting

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on 26th July 2016 (All posts by )

    There was a brief hiccup of indignation last week regarding the French police choosing to downplay the fact that the dead hostages taken by Islamist terrorists at the Bataclan music hall had been viciously tortured and their bodies mutilated. There was the same brief hiccup of indignation when it appeared that the German police likewise chose to downplay those instances of sexual abuse perpetrated on local women by so-called Syrian “refugees.” A commenter on one particular thread discussing this observed, acidly, that we were now well into Pravda and Izvestia country, where the published news stories must be carefully scrutinized and parsed to tease out the actual facts; what is released regarding certain occurrences is not meant to inform us. Instead, such reports are meant to appear as if we are being informed, but the actual intent is to conceal and not to offend those in political power.

    I’ve begun to believe, though, that our establishment media and those elements of the Ruling Class (in the Anthony Codevilla sense) who control or collude with them are going well beyond simply obscuring current events – but are deliberately practicing a kind of mass-gaslighting on us all. Gas-lighting? Oh, yes; this is a definition, courtesy of the Urban Dictionary:
    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Big Government, Media, Politics, Society | 40 Comments »

    Happy thought

    Posted by TM Lutas on 25th July 2016 (All posts by )

    Once in awhile, you see a gem of an internet comment that justifies taking the time to dive in. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the hope and prayer of us all. Buddygonzo wishes that going forward we will all have “common sense email control”.

    Buddygonzo just won the Internet for today

    Posted in Humor, Miscellaneous, National Security, Politics | 13 Comments »

    Loyalty and Risk-Taking

    Posted by David Foster on 22nd July 2016 (All posts by )

    In one of the old Neptunus Lex posts that Bill Brandt has been rerunning at The Lexicans, Lex wrote about the man who was CO of his FA-18 training squadron:

    My student cohort held him in awe: We’d been told that he had received an Air Medal during the war for saving a squadron mate’s life, or his liberty anyway. The latter had come off target badly hit and managed to limp only as far as the harbor at Hai Phong before his machine came apart. The pilot had been forced to eject and was floating in his raft a mile or so off shore, when he saw an NVA patrol craft bounding out to seize him. The unlucky aviator was contemplating the austere amenities of the Hanoi Hilton when our CO roared overhead at 500 feet, firing a Shrike missile in boresight mode.

    The Shrike is an anti-radiation missile, designed to home on enemy radar and destroy it.  The radar-following mechanism is its only guidance system; the only way to hit a target that is not emitting radar is to get very close to it before you fire the missile–thereby placing yourself at considerable additional risk  Lex’s CO had taken that risk, destroying the North Vietnamese patrol craft, and making it possible for the shot-down pilot to be rescued by helicopter..

    Reading the story, I couldn’t help wondering:  which if any of our current crop of political candidates and leaders would–in the extremely unlikely event that they ever found themselves flying combat aircraft–have made the same decision?

    Posted in Human Behavior, Politics, USA, Vietnam, War and Peace | 25 Comments »

    Cruz, Pence

    Posted by Lexington Green on 21st July 2016 (All posts by )

    Rockefeller and Romney, rising stars, refused to back the doomed Goldwater bid in 1964. They ended their careers by trying to save them, by disloyalty. Two guys who fought for the team in 1964, knowing it was doomed, earned the respect of the party faithful and each went on to dominate the party and be elected and reelected in 49 state landslides — Nixon and Reagan. There is a right and a wrong way to play it when there are intra-party differences. You respect the voters and you respect the process, you fight for yourself in the primaries, and when you lose you fight for the team, you take the hit for the team, and your teammates remember your loyalty and reward it. Ted Cruz is a fool, who apparently thinks he can help Hillary win, then be in position to win in 2020. But he has shown brutal disloyalty, and even violated an express, public pledge to back the nominee. He can never be trusted again. He has, I hope, destroyed his political future. I liked Ted, if he won I would have supported him. But there is no going back from this decision.

    More importantly, Mike Pence gave a very good, solid, appealing speech. He managed to turn the Trump message into a more mainstream Conservative message, which is not really that hard. Well-played by Pence. He has set the foundation for a successful future, however this campaign ends up.

    UPDATE:

    This is what Ted should have said:

    I took a pledge to support the party’s nominee.

    I will keep that pledge.

    I would be lying to you if I said this is easy.

    My race against Donald Trump became personal, and ugly, and painful, in ways I won’t repeat tonight.

    Many people who supported me, people close to me, people I love, cannot forgive him.

    And I understand that.

    But there is too much at stake to dwell on the past.

    The race is over, it’s in the history books now.

    And the history of America’s future is unwritten.

    It is up to us to write it, together.

    What we need to do as a party is come together, and find the conservative values we do share.

    What we need to do as a party is come together, no matter how bitter the race was, no matter how much we may disagree, no matter what personal animosities we may still feel, and defeat Hillary Clinton.

    So, my fellow Americans, my fellow Republicans, tonight I keep my pledge, and I endore my party’s nominee for President, Donald J. Trump.

    Posted in Politics, Trump | 46 Comments »

    The Leftward Shift at Fox News.

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on 19th July 2016 (All posts by )

    I have not been a big fan of Fox News but it was the only source of relatively neutral political reporting on TV for years. Some years ago, Charles Krauthammer famously said, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes found a “niche market ” with 50% of the population.

    I said some years ago that the genius of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was to have discovered a niche market in American broadcasting — half the American people. The reason Fox News has thrived and grown is because it offers a vibrant and honest alternative to those who could not abide yet another day of the news delivered to them beneath layer after layer of often undisguised liberalism.

    What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.

    A few years ago, I was on a radio show with a well-known political reporter who lamented the loss of a pristine past in which the whole country could agree on what the facts were, even if they disagreed on how to interpret and act upon them. All that was gone now. The country had become so fractured we couldn’t even agree on what reality was. What she meant was that the day in which the front page of The New York Times was given scriptural authority everywhere was gone, shattered by the rise of Fox News.

    Now, in a trend that has become depressingly common, the heirs of Murdoch are taking over and shifting the programming left. Roger Ailes has been named by a disgruntled ex-employee in a fairly laughable sexual harassment suit. Carlson was fired and then, after being fired, sued alleging harassment.

    Ailes, predictably, dismissed the charges as false.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Conservatism, Leftism, Media, Politics, The Press | 24 Comments »

    Melania Trump’s Speech Was Intentionally Sabotaged

    Posted by Lexington Green on 19th July 2016 (All posts by )

    Melania

    This story is more interesting and important than people seem to realize.

    What do we know happened?

    Melania Trump gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. The speech was long-anticipated, and long in preparation. It was considered by the Trump campaign to be a significant moment, where Melania Trump would be introduced to the public and her speech would humanize and soften the image of Donald Trump.

    The speech, during and immediately after Melania Trump gave it, was considered a success. She is not a professional politician or otherwise a public speaker by profession. So, her smoothly delivered and well-received speech was a solid success for the campaign.

    It was in the interests of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to undermine that success if possible. Denigrating Melania Trump for her looks, for the banality of the speech, and so on, were expected, and such mocking and insulting responses were of course under way during and immediately after the speech.

    Soon after the speech, how soon exactly is a point worth of investigation, the word began to circulate that Melania Trump had plagiarized language from a speech by Michelle Obama. In fact, there were some phrases which were identical. “You work hard for what you want in life, your word is your bond, you do what you say” and “you treat people with respect”.

    These phrases are not particularly noteworthy.

    They are boilerplate, even banal.

    Yet Melania Trump repeated them word for word.

    These are all undisputed facts.

    What are the open questions?

    What possible advantage was there for Melania Trump to repeat Michelle Obama’s speech word for word?

    None. Zero.

    Michelle Obama’s words could be restated equally effectively with other phrasing. Using identical words makes no sense.

    There is no motive here.

    Nonetheless, it is barely possible that Melania Trump knowingly repeated those words from Michelle Obama’s speech, thinking no one would notice, even though tweaking a few words would have removed any hint of plagiarism.

    Perhaps Melania Trump is lazy, dishonest, and very stupid, and so indifferent to the success of her husband’s campaign that she knowingly plagiarized Michelle Obama’s language.

    That is one possible explanation.

    It is not convincing.

    However, there is more.

    There is also a passage in Melania Trump’s speech which is a direct quote from a Rick Astley song.

    In other words, Melania Trump’s speech was Rickrolled.

    To those who do not recall the fad from 2008 or so, Rickrolling was providing a link which purported to be something else, but in fact linked to a Rick Astley video, in fact, the very video whose lyrics were included in Melania Trump’s speech.

    The only plausible explanation for the presence of these lyrics is that someone who participated in the drafting of Melania Trump’s speech intentionally included the Rick Astley lyric, apparently as a signal the speech had been “hacked.”

    The Rick Astley lyric is a mocking gesture, a flipped bird from the saboteur.

    There is no rational explanation for Melania Trump knowingly or intentionally including the Rick Astley lyric in her speech.

    Someone who knew what the Rick Astley lyric represented included it in the speech.

    Others have suggested that the so-called plagiarism might have been intentional sabotage by someone involved in the speech-writing process, e.g. this article.

    In fact, there is no other plausible explanation.

    Either Melania Trump knowingly included the plagiarized Michelle Obama quotes in her initial draft — or she did not.

    It is barely possible she did, though highly unlikely.

    Either Melania Trump “Rickrolled herself” — or she did not.

    That is impossible.

    It makes no sense at all.

    Melania Trump’s speech was intentionally sabotaged.

    What no one seems to have pointed out is that the production of this speech, like any important written work product, is a heavily documented process.

    Melania Trump and the Trump campaign claim that she wrote the speech. What precisely that means is not clear. What it likely means is that she drafted it, or prepared an initial draft. What is certain is that whatever draft Melania Trump prepared was then circulated for comment and editing. That is the standard process. It is inconceivable that she wrote something in private and then gave the speech to the Republican National Convention with no input or review by anyone else. To the contrary, we know that the speech was the result of a long drafting process and was rehearsed repeatedly, and probably revised and refined during that process as well. Some number of other persons were involved in the process.

    The documentary evidence within the Trump campaign, including email traffic and draft versions of the speech, will show with certainty at what point in the drafting process the Michelle Obama language was added, and when the Rick Astley language was added.

    The documentary evidence within the Trump campaign will also with certainty identify the person who added each of these items to Melania Trump’s speech.

    If Melania Trump’s initial draft did not include this language, when was it added?

    Who put it in?

    What was that person’s motive?

    Did this person act alone?

    Was this a dirty trick done in collusion with others?

    If so, with whom?

    Did the person who added the language send email or text messages which can be examined to determine whether that person tipped off anyone to break the plagiarism story?

    Did that person breach any confidentiality agreement or other agreement with the Trump campaign?

    Is that person subject to a lawsuit?

    How did someone hostile to Trump, willing and able to sabotage Melania Trump’s speech, penetrate the campaign organization undetected?

    Are there other moles in the campaign organization?

    These are all questions that need to be answered.

    Determining precisely who was responsible, what their motives were, and how they did it, would be the kind of questions a real news media would be asking.

    Instead, they are acting like the Democratic operatives they are, presenting the consensus anti-Trump narrative, while failing to note that it makes no sense.

    Bottom line: A calculated attack was made on Trump’s campaign, his wife’s speech was hacked and an important success was turned into a circus and an embarrassment for the campaign.

    We need to know what really happened.

    We may be in for a season of more serious dirty tricks.

    This episode should be thoroughly investigated.

    UPDATE:

    A speechwriter has come forward claiming the Michelle Obama language was included in error.

    This does not explain the Rickroll, however.

    Posted in Politics, Trump | 64 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: The Libertarian/Popperian Case for Brexit: A Response to Professors Somin, Levy, Norberg et al.

    Posted by Jonathan on 19th July 2016 (All posts by )

    The so-called libertarian case against Brexit works like this. Nations do bad things. E.g., tariffs. And the European Union (“EU”) blocks some (perhaps many of) those bad things. Indeed, the EU has set up a tariff-free free trade zone. That’s a good thing. Therefore EU-good & Brexit-bad. This position is not entirely wrong, but it is only half the story.
     
    First, the EU (and EFTA) free trade zone extends to EU (and EFTA) member states and their dependencies, and also to a few nearby non-member political entities (e.g., San Marino, Andorra, etc). This tariff-free free trade zone does not extend to the world. So when foreign goods are imported into the “tariff-free free trade zone” across the EU’s external borders, EU law mandates a “Common Customs Tariff”. In other words, hand-in-hand with the absence of tariffs among member states is an EU-imposed tariff against non-members’ exports. Whether this situation is a net gain for the people of Europe is a complex empirical question. That question is not answered merely by parroting the EU’s line: we promote tariff-free free trade. No, that question is not so easily answered because although the EU promotes some free trade, it positively discriminates against non-members’ exports.

    Read the rest.

    This is a long and well reasoned post that is worth reading in full. The gist of Seth’s argument is that the political phenomena lumped together as “Brexit” should be evaluated empirically rather than according to someone’s interpretation of libertarian doctrine; there are good reasons for supporters of freedom and open societies to favor Britain’s exit from the EU.

    UPDATE: Ilya Somin responds. The reader is invited to evaluate Somin’s full response for himself, but I was struck by this line: “Tillman’s discussion of immigration is notable for its implicit assumption that we can assess immigration policy while completely ignoring the freedom and interests of potential immigrants themselves.” Has there ever been a country that framed its immigration policy in any terms other than its own self-interest?

    Posted in Britain, Current Events, Europe, Libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics | 3 Comments »

    MOHAMED AND HIS TRUCK

    Posted by Trent Telenko on 15th July 2016 (All posts by )

    The headline at the Drudge Report says it all —  MOHAMED AND HIS TRUCK.

    A Tunisian born Muslim with French citizenship took a box truck and ran over hundreds during the annual French Bastille Day celebrations in NICE, Southern France.

    The UK Daily mail article at this link —

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3691895/He-drank-alcohol-ate-pork-took-drugs-NOT-Muslim-Truck-terrorist-Mohamed-Lahouaiej-Bouhlel-s-cousin-reveals-unlikely-jihadist-beat-wife-NEVER-went-mosque.html

    …said that Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drank alcohol, ate pork, chased women at night clubs, beat his wife and took drugs.  He was a petty criminal, publicly violent, and possibly an informant for French police or internal security forces before he was turned into a suicide-murderer by those who he was spying on, according to David P. Goldman of the Asia Times.

    See Goldman’s article titled:

    WHY THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING THE INTELLIGENCE WAR
    http://atimes.com/2016/07/why-the-terrorists-are-winning-the-intelligence-war/

    The only thing of importance in all of this is the realization that the law enforcement and internal security forces in the West have lost control.  No amount of law enforcement, electronic surveillance or gun control can prevent a suicide-murderer bent on religious self-immolation, and activated by the ongoing world wide social media incitement campaign(s), from killing dozens to hundreds.

    What cannot go on, won’t.

    Goldman suggests in his article that a General Sherman “March Through Georgia” style of collective punishment of Muslim civilian populations in the West can work to end this random death in the Western civilization’s life support.

    The bottom line — as BREXIT proved — is that publics in Western democracies can and will replace elites that say nothing can be done, and that Western publics “…will have to accept more Muslim Mass Immigration & Terrorism, because… (insert P. C. excuse here)”.

    Discuss.

     

     

    Posted in Big Government, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Culture, Current Events, Europe, France, Islam, Law Enforcement, Leftism, National Security, Politics | 61 Comments »

    Tweet of the Day

    Posted by Jonathan on 15th July 2016 (All posts by )

    If the #FamilyResearchCouncil wanted to win a SC case, then change name to Donald #Trump Research Council. #Ginsburg would be conflicted out

    Seth Barrett Tillman

    Posted in Humor, Law, Politics, Trump | 1 Comment »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Impeachment of Associate Justice Samuel Chase

    Posted by Jonathan on 14th July 2016 (All posts by )

    Déjà vu.

    (Related: Justice Ginsburg apologizes over comments about Trump)

    Posted in Current Events, History, Law, Politics, Trump | Comments Off on Seth Barrett Tillman: Impeachment of Associate Justice Samuel Chase

    Seth Barrett Tillman: The Code of Conduct for United States Judges does not apply to U.S. Supreme Court Justices — why?

    Posted by Jonathan on 13th July 2016 (All posts by )

    The federal Code of Judicial Conduct applies to all Article III judges—except members of the Supreme Court of the United States. Is that because Supreme Court justices do not need ethics? No. Is it because they are better human beings, citizens, and jurists than their lower court colleagues? No.
     
    Consider recusal when judicial bias is asserted…

    Read the whole thing.

    Posted in Civil Society, Deep Thoughts, Elections, Law, Politics, Quotations | 7 Comments »

    What the Hell is going on ?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on 7th July 2016 (All posts by )

    Brig-4

    I have been ruminating about the Hillary case since the Bill and Loretta meeting at the Phoenix Airport last weekend.

    What is going on ?

    The meeting was a big secret and no reporters were supposed to be there. However, a local TV station was at the airport.

    The temperature was 115 degrees. Bill Clinton was alleged to be playing golf but HE DID NOT DO SO. He was meeting with a donor.

    Former President Clinton was visiting the Phoenix area and arrived to Sky Harbor Monday evening to depart.

    Sources tell ABC15 Clinton was notified Lynch would be arriving at the airport soon and waited for her arrival.

    Lynch was arriving in Phoenix for a planned visit as part of her national tour to promote community policing.

    ABC15 asked Lynch about the meeting during her news conference at the Phoenix Police Department.

    I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane,” said Lynch.

    She made some risible remark about discussing golf and grandchildren. She had no children, let alone grandchildren.

    This story stinks to high heaven.

    Then Comey had his short announcement. CNN, of course, loved it.

    Comey last navigated politics this turbulent in 2004, when he was deputy attorney general and he was at the center of a dramatic showdown with the White House over a surveillance program ordered by President George W. Bush. Comey and other Justice Department and FBI officials threatened to resign in the dispute, and Comey, a Republican, emerged a hero to the political left.

    This is a lie. Comey was hip deep in the controversies of the Bush Administration and not in an impartial way.

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Law Enforcement, National Security, Politics | 5 Comments »

    Quote of the Day

    Posted by Jonathan on 6th July 2016 (All posts by )

    Dale Franks, Vote Properly, You Virulent Racist!:

    But let’s go even further. Even if you could prove that, on balance, free trade is an unquestionable economic benefit, people might still prefer to be measurably poorer if that’s the price that must be paid to maintain their traditional social and political cultures. (This has even more relevance in the case of the EU, because the EU actually has power. Imagine if NAFTA had an unelected Commission in Ottowa or Mexico City that could impose laws on the United States.) Perhaps people don’t regard their economic interests as important as their national or cultural interests. It doesn’t matter what elite opinion thinks the people’s most important interests are. In a democratic society, ultimately, it only matters what the people think they are. People get to determine their own priorities, and not have them dictated by elites. The people get to answer for themselves the question, “In what kind of country do I want to live?”
     
    Of course, I would argue that we don’t have truly free trade or, increasingly, a free economy in the United States. The Progressives always look at the rising income inequality and maintain that it’s the inevitable result of capitalism. That’s hogwash, of course, and Proggies believe it because they’re dolts. But the problem in this country isn’t free trade—we have precious little of it—or unrestricted capitalism, since we have precious little of that as well. The issue behind rising income inequality isn’t capitalism, it’s cronyism. Income isn’t being redirected to the 1% because capitalism has failed, it’s happening because we abandoned capitalism in favor of the regulatory crony state and its de facto collusion between big business/banking interests and a government that directs capital to favored political clients, who become “too big to fail”. It doesn’t matter, for instance, whether the president is a Democrat or Republican, because we know the Treasury Secretary will be a former—and future—Goldman Sachs executive.

    Franks’s post is very well thought through and ties together the main themes that appear to be driving US, British and European politics. It’s worth reading in full if you haven’t yet done so.

    Posted in America 3.0, Capitalism, Civil Society, Conservatism, Crony Capitalism, Culture, Current Events, Economics & Finance, Elections, Human Behavior, Immigration, Leftism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Society, Tea Party, Tradeoffs, Trump | 9 Comments »

    Clinton Comey?

    Posted by Charles Cameron on 5th July 2016 (All posts by )

    [ cross-posted from Zenpundit — questions relating to the ongoing CBz discussion, FBI Kills Rule of Law — Refuses to Indict Hillary Over Her E-mails — with a side dish of Tzipi Livni ]
    .

    Ckinton Comey
    photo credit: Greg Nash via The Hill

    I’ll be socratic here, asking questions to illuminate my hunches.

    **

    I’m seldom fully convinced by anything that comes from the left and reads the way I’d expect the left to read, and seldom convinced by anything that comes from the right and reads the way I’d expect the right to read, so I don’t take the left’s assertions downplaying H Clinton’s security behavior with reflex belief, and on the whole I’m inclined to follow John Schindler, who — both as an ex-NSA analyst and as a regular at The Observer — takes a very hard line on Clinton’s security behavior, writing just a couple of weeks ago under the title, The Coming Constitutional Crisis Over Hillary Clinton’s EmailGate.

    I also follow War on the Rocks, though, and was struck a while back by a post there from Mark Stout, drawing some interesting distinctions in line with its subtitle, “A former intelligence analyst who worked at both the CIA and the State Department explains how different approaches to classifying information sits at the heart of the scandal that threatens to undo Hillary Clinton.”

    Which does somewhat complicate matters, while somewhat helping us understand them.

    **

    I’m neither an American nor a lawyer, and as someone who is generally inclined more to bridge-building than to taking sides in any case, I don’t feel qualified to debate the Comey-Clinton affair – but was interested to see emptywheel’s Marcy Wheeler, whom I take to be leftish, coming out today describing Comey’s decision as an “improper public prosecutorial opinion”. She writes:

    Understand, though: with Sterling and Drake, DOJ decided they were disloyal to the US, and then used their alleged mishandling of classified information as proof that they were disloyal to the US ..Ultimately, it involves arbitrary decisions about who is disloyal to the US, and from that a determination that the crime of mishandling classified information occurred.

    Comey, in turn, seems to have made it pretty clear that “Secretary Clinton or her colleagues“ were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” – specifically:

    .. seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.  These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters.

    **

    Is there, in your views, special treatment in this matter for persons of high rank present here?

    livni

    And out of curiosity, if so, do you see a similar case of special treatment for persons of high rank over in the UK, known to be substantially less Israel-friendly than the US, where Scotland Yard wanted to question Tzipi Livni about alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza under her watch as Foreign Minister, and “after diplomatic talks” Livni was “granted special diplomatic immunity”?

    **

    On the one hand, I don’t like show-trials, trials-by-press, banana courts or mob justice, and far prefer just laws justly applied – and on the other, I can understand that the scrutiny those in high office find themselves under can render them legally vulnerable in ways that may unduly influence their decision-making – and justice may be platonically blind, but is not always uniformly applied in practice. Such, it seems to me, is the human dilemma.

    What say you?

    Posted in Britain, Current Events, Elections, Israel, Law, Miscellaneous, National Security, Politics, USA | 19 Comments »

    FBI Kills Rule of Law — Refuses to Indict Hillary Over Her E-mails

    Posted by Trent Telenko on 5th July 2016 (All posts by )

    FBI Director James Comey today in a Washington DC news conference confirmed what many have suspected.

    The Rule of Law in America is now strictly a political football for those who are in power.

    The FBI has refused to indict ex-Sec of State Hillary Clinton for multiple clear violations of Federal law by hosting an unsecured e-mail server with classified data off-site from the State Department.  A server that was know to have been hacked by most of America’s foreign enemies.

    Gatewaypundit has many of the details here —

    FBI Director Comey: We Found Hillary “Work Related” Emails That Were Not Turned Over to FBI – But Recommend NO CHARGES FIled

     

    Posted in America 3.0, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Crime and Punishment, Current Events, Law, Law Enforcement, Leftism, Miscellaneous, Political Philosophy, Politics | 26 Comments »

    The Paving on the Road to Hell

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on 3rd July 2016 (All posts by )

    That paving was laid down in California over the last few weeks; first by attendees at a Donald Trump rally in San Jose being harassed and physically attacked after the rally by protestors – and this with the apparent acquiescence (or possibly the tacit encouragement) of the San Jose Police Department, and then again in Sacramento a week ago, when a protest organized on the grounds of the California State Capitol in Sacramento by a group calling themselves the  Traditionalist Worker Party –  variously described as white supremacists or neo-Nazis – was attacked by a group proudly identifying themselves as anti-fascist. As was reported in the Los Angeles Times, when last Sunday’s rally began, “Waiting for them were counter-protesters, including members of the anti-fascist organization Antifa Sacramento, which had promoted a “Shut Down Nazi Rally” event on its website…”

    The Traditionalist Worker Party members, whatever their merits or lack thereof, had a permit for a demonstration, and in the larger understanding of things, a perfect right to make fools of themselves in public, just as it was found in 1978 – that a neo-Nazi organization had the perfect right to march through Skokie, Illinois. No less a luminary than the ACLU defended that as a matter of free speech and the exercise thereof. Personally, I find it ironic that the so-called anti-fascists are acting more like actual, historic fascists than those they loudly accuse of being fascists. Read the rest of this entry »

    Posted in Americas, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Conservatism, Current Events, Law Enforcement, Leftism, Politics, USA | 22 Comments »

    Seth Barrett Tillman: Reflections on the Revolution in the UK: Parts 3 and 4

    Posted by Jonathan on 1st July 2016 (All posts by )

    Part 3: Farage’s Poster Is Racist:

    Farage was called a racist (and worse [1 minute mark]) for this poster.
     
    Yet, no one claims this photograph was a fake, i.e., a staged photograph made with actors and props. No one claims that it was photoshopped. No one claims that the skin tone of the people in the photograph was altered or, even, darkened. No one claims that the photograph was out of date. And no one claims that the picture is not representative of the pattern of large scale immigration coming into the European Union (here, Slovenia—an EU member state) from the Third World.
     
    In other words, if you reproduce a photograph of an actual, recent event, you are a racist…

    and

    Part 4: Errors of the Labour Party and the Remain Camp:

    A fictionalized exchange on television between any Labour candidate for MP and an audience member during the 2015 general election …
     

    [. . .]
     
    Labour Candidate for Parliament: I understand. New immigrants—frequently coming without skills that fit the modern U.K. economy—cause wage compression at the low end of the wage scale. We will make sure employers pay the minimum wage; we will ensure that your economic interests are protected.
     
    Audience Member: No, that’s not my point (at least, that’s not my only point). I don’t like how our society is being changed by mass immigration. I don’t like polygamy. It is illegal, but no one gets prosecuted for it. I don’t like FGM. It too is illegal, but it is not actively prosecuted. I don’t like it when the immigrants’ customs are accommodated in these ways—I don’t want our criminal laws ignored by the immigrants or by the police and the prosecutors. It makes me feel unsafe—it makes me think the immigrants’ way of life is preferred over ours. The immigrants should be integrated into our communities, not the other way around.
     
    Labour Candidate for Parliament: I understand. We will work to ensure that your wages are not compressed.
     
    Audience Member: You’re not listening. That’s not what I said: I don’t like the direction your party’s immigration policies under Blair & Brown have taken our country. I don’t like where we are now as a result—not that Cameron has done anything to modify those policies.
     
    [. . .]

    Read the whole series.

    Posted in Anglosphere, Big Government, Britain, Civil Society, Conservatism, Current Events, Elections, Europe, Immigration, Leftism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Trump | 1 Comment »